Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors DW drafted the manuscript and TN helped to plan, edit and research.
Funding Wellcome Trust (WT106587/Z/14/Z).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
↵i This is a composite case experienced by DW. Details have been altered.
↵ii Birchley is correct in this sense—all cases that fall above the HT would also sit above the BIT (choices that impose a significant risk of serious harm by definition do not maximally promote the well-being of the child). However, the reverse does not apply.
↵iii One example is the difference between oral and intramuscular preparations of vitamin K. Although it appears from epidemiological studies that intramuscular vitamin K is more effective than oral vitamin K in preventing haemorrhagic disease,7 there have been no randomised controlled trials that have looked at this question.4
Linked Articles
- Law, ethics and medicine
- Law, ethics and medicine
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Harm is all you need? Best interests and disputes about parental decision-making
- The harm threshold and parents’ obligation to benefit their children
- Vitamin K deficiency bleeding in Australian infants 1993–2017: an Australian Paediatric Surveillance Unit study
- Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice
- Overriding parents’ medical decisions for their children: a systematic review of normative literature
- Vitamin K deficiency bleeding in cholestatic infants with alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency
- Which vitamin K preparation for the newborn?
- Oral mixed micellar vitamin K for prevention of late vitamin K deficiency bleeding
- Indeterminacy and the normative basis of the harm threshold for overriding parental decisions: a response to Birchley
- A threshold of significant harm (f)or a viable alternative therapeutic option?