Article Text
Abstract
A growing number of bioethics papers endorse the harm threshold when judging whether to override parental decisions. Among other claims, these papers argue that the harm threshold is easily understood by lay and professional audiences and correctly conforms to societal expectations of parents in regard to their children. English law contains a harm threshold which mediates the use of the best interests test in cases where a child may be removed from her parents. Using Diekema's seminal paper as an example, this paper explores the proposed workings of the harm threshold. I use examples from the practical use of the harm threshold in English law to argue that the harm threshold is an inadequate answer to the indeterminacy of the best interests test. I detail two criticisms: First, the harm standard has evaluative overtones and judges are loath to employ it where parental behaviour is misguided but they wish to treat parents sympathetically. Thus, by focusing only on ‘substandard’ parenting, harm is problematic where the parental attempts to benefit their child are misguided or wrong, such as in disputes about withdrawal of medical treatment. Second, when harm is used in genuine dilemmas, court judgments offer different answers to similar cases. This level of indeterminacy suggests that, in practice, the operation of the harm threshold would be indistinguishable from best interests. Since indeterminacy appears to be the greatest problem in elucidating what is best, bioethicists should concentrate on discovering the values that inform best interests.
- Decision-making
- Paediatrics
- Newborns and Minors
- Law
- Minors/Parental Consent
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- Law, ethics and medicine
- Law, ethics and medicine
- Law, ethics and medicine
- Law, ethics and medicine
- The concise argument
Other content recommended for you
- The harm threshold and parents’ obligation to benefit their children
- Harm isn't all you need: parental discretion and medical decisions for a child
- Indeterminacy and the normative basis of the harm threshold for overriding parental decisions: a response to Birchley
- Overriding parents’ medical decisions for their children: a systematic review of normative literature
- Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice
- The limits of parental responsibility regarding medical treatment decisions
- Parental manual ventilation in resource-limited settings: an ethical controversy
- A threshold of significant harm (f)or a viable alternative therapeutic option?
- Minority report: can minor parents refuse treatment for their child?
- Medically assisted gender affirmation: when children and parents disagree