Reflections on Charlie Gard and the Best Interests Standard From Both Sides of the Atlantic Ocean

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 146 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. S60-S65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lainie Friedman Ross
Author(s):  
Jessica Berg ◽  
Emma Cave

This chapter discusses patient autonomy, capacity, and consent involving children. It first provides a general overview of children’s rights with respect to making medical decisions in both the United States and Europe. The chapter then discusses the best interests standard (which is usually applied in cases of minors) and how to consider capacity in the context of children. In the discussions of European approaches, the chapter covers relevant international and regional human rights law. The jurisdiction of England and Wales are used as examples. The chapter also provides a general overview of US state approaches and federal law. The chapter concludes by noting some new areas of medical decision-making which challenge the traditional models.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 613-631
Author(s):  
John Eekelaar

Abstract While Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires states to respect parents’ responsibilities to provide ‘appropriate’ direction and guidance to their children, Article 18 also proclaims that ‘the best interests of the child will be [the parents’] basic concern’. But how can this be done if, as is widely accepted, the “best interests” standard is too indeterminate safely to allow courts to substitute their assessment of children’s interests for those of a child’s parents? This reason for privatising such decisions has been reinforced by concerns over the extent of public expenditure on court involvement in and legal aid for such issues, with the possible result of withdrawal of the law from this process. This article argues that there are inherent risks in leaving the arrangements for children of separating parents entirely in the hands of the parents, and considers various ways in which such risks might be reduced.


CHEST Journal ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 138 (4) ◽  
pp. 1021-1022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Y. Rady ◽  
Joseph L. Verheijde

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 441-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristof Van Assche ◽  
Gilles Genicot ◽  
Sigrid Sterckx

Abstract With the current situation in Belgium as its initial focus, this article will examine the regulatory framework that governs the use of mentally incompetent adults as living organ donors in Europe. Our survey of the national regulation of 22 countries will reveal widely diverging viewpoints, ranging from an absolute prohibition on organ procurement to a barely restricted authorisation to retrieve even non-regenerable organs. We also have a look at the way in which American and English court decisions have applied the best interests standard in an attempt to define the contours of acceptable organ removal from mentally incompetent donors. Taking the best interests of the mentally incompetent person as a yardstick, we suggest that legally prohibiting organ removal from mentally incompetents may be problematic, even if it concerns only non-regenerable organs, and that regulations should be refined accordingly.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Addie C. Rolnick

A full understanding of the roots of child separation must begin with Native children. This Article demonstrates how modern child welfare, delinquency, and education systems are rooted in the social control of indigenous children. It examines the experiences of Native girls in federal and state systems from the late 1800s to the mid1900s to show that, despite their ostensibly benevolent and separate purposes, these institutions were indistinguishable and interchangeable. They were simply differently styled mechanisms of forced assimilation, removal, discipline, and confinement. As the repeating nature of government intervention into the lives of Native children makes clear, renaming a system does not change its effect. The historical roots of these systems must be acknowledged, and the current systems must be abolished and replaced. To answer the question of what a nonpunitive, non-assimilative system would look like, this Article looks to tribal courts and indigenous justice systems. It points to specific examples of how Native communities have reshaped ideas about caring for and disciplining children, including traditional adoption, kinship care, wellness courts, family group conferencing, and a “best interests” standard that emphasizes the link between individual and collective well-being. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document