Article Text
PDF
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Irish Supreme Court upholds paramountcy of parental right to determine a child's best interests at the expense of the rights of children themselves
Can a court force on parents who are careful and conscientious a view of their child's welfare which is rational, but quite contrary to the parents sincerely held but non-rational beliefs? The Supreme Court of Ireland has recently held that it cannot do so, and that the Irish Constitution requires that the right of the family to determine its own direction must be respected except in the most narrow of circumstances, such as an immediate threat to the life of the child or risk of serious injury. The ruling leaves the assessment of a child's best interests to the wide discretion of parents, but at the same time fails to offer a means to resolve potential conflicts between the rights of the family and the rights of the child.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In North Western Health Board v W (H)1 an action was brought by a local health board against the parents of 14 month old Paul, seeking a declaration that their refusal to submit their son to the heel prick test for phenylketonuria (PKU) was a failure to vindicate their son's rights and that it would be lawful to proceed without parental consent. Phenylketonuria is a metabolic condition which can lead to severe and untreatable mental impairment if not detected in its early stages, but a simple variation in diet can stave off this outcome. While Paul's parents did not doubt the veracity of this medical opinion, nor indeed the importance of the test, they refused to subject their son to the invasive heel prick, offering instead samples of urine or hair, such that the test could be carried out by non-invasive means. These means, however, are considerably …
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The best interests test at the end of life on PICU: a plea for a family centred approach
- Is it in the best interests of an intellectually disabled infant to die?
- A threshold of significant harm (f)or a viable alternative therapeutic option?
- The mental health of refugee children
- Clinic, courtroom or (specialist) committee: in the best interests of the critically Ill child?
- Ethics of refusing parental requests to withhold or withdraw treatment from their premature baby
- The role of the courts in clinical decision making
- Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice
- Consent and capacity in children and young people
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision