Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Involving parents in paediatric clinical ethics committee deliberations: a current controversy
  1. David Archard1,
  2. Emma Cave2,
  3. Joe Brierley3
  1. 1 School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics, Queen's University, Belfast, UK
  2. 2 Durham Law School, University of Durham, Durham, UK
  3. 3 Paediatric Bioethics Centre, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Joe Brierley, Paediatric Bioethics, Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Foundation Trust, London WC1N 3JH, UK; joe.brierley{at}


In cases where the best interests of the child are disputed or finely balanced, Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) can provide a valuable source of advice to clinicians and trusts on the pertinent ethical dimensions. Recent judicial cases have criticised the lack of formalised guidance and inconsistency in the involvement of parents in CEC deliberations. In Manchester University NHS FT v Verden [2022], Arbuthnot J set out important procedural guidance as to how parental involvement in CEC deliberations might be managed. She also confirmed substantive guidance on the role of parental views in determining the child’s best interests. We agree that it is good practice to ensure that the patient voice is heard in ethics processes, but how that is achieved is controversial. Surely it is best that what matters most to a patient and their family, whether facts or values, is conveyed directly to those considering the moral issues involved, rather than via a prism of another party. The approach suggested in the Verden case has much in common with the process used by our CEC. In this article, we commend Arbuthnot J’s approach, provide an example of its effective operation and consider what it might mean for ethics processes.

  • ethics
  • ethics committees
  • child
  • family

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

View Full Text


  • Twitter @profEmmaCave

  • Contributors JB had the original idea. DA wrote the first draft. JB and EC then both contributed to writing/completing the submitted version. JB accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests JB and DA are members of the GOSH Bioethics Centre team.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Other content recommended for you