Resolving disagreement: a multi-jurisdictional comparative analysis of disputes about children’s medical care

Recently, the English courts have dealt with a number high-profile, emotive disputes over the care of very ill children, including Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans, and Tafida Raqeeb. It is perhaps fair to say such cases have become a regular feature of the courts in England. But is the situation similar in other jurisdictions? If not, are there lessons to be learned from these jurisdictions that do not seem to need to call on judges to resolve these otherwise intractable disputes? We argue that many of the differences we see between jurisdictions derive from cultural and social differences manifesting in both the legal rules in place, and how the various parties interact with, and defer to, one another. We further argue that while recourse to the courts is undesirable in many ways, it is also indicative of a society that permits difference of views and provides for these differences to be considered in a public manner following clear procedural and precedential rules. These are the hallmarks of a liberal democracy that allows for pluralism of values, while still remaining committed to protecting the most vulnerable parties in these disputes-children facing life-limiting conditions

Claiming in contract for wrongful conception

Reflects on the contractual approach adopted by the court in ARB v IVF Hammersmith (CA) when considering whether the costs of raising a wrongfully conceived child were recoverable. Discusses claims that a clinic breached an express or implied contractual term to obtain consent to the thawing and implanting of frozen embryos, and criticises the court's extension of tortious principles from earlier case law into a contractual context

Parental rights, best interests and significant harms: who should have the final say over a child's medical care?

Who should have the ultimate say over a child's medical treatment? A series of high-profile withdrawal of care cases have highlighted the full extent of the courts’ authority to make decisions on behalf of children in the medical context. In both the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans litigation, the courts have made clear that they have the power to make medical decisions for children at the point that child's welfare is engaged. All courts involved in both cases affirmed the orthodox position that the threshold for judicial intervention in disputes about medical care of children is the welfare of the child, often referred to as the “best interests” approach (referring to both the threshold and the test applied to determine what should be done). While no new point of law has been decided in these cases, they are important in that they confirm just how expansive the inherent jurisdiction of the courts in such cases is, extending as far as to prevent parents from removing their child to another jurisdiction to pursue alternative treatment. In this paper, we argue that the current threshold for intervention is too low. We argue that prima facie decision-making authority about a child's medical care should rest with the child's parents, affording them the ability to choose between the range of medical options available. This authority should yield only where the parents’ decision carries a “serious risk of significant harm” to the child, at which point the court then has the authority to intervene. When it does so, the court should then apply the best interests approach

Quality and safety of genetic testing in Australia and New Zealand: a review of the current regulatory framework

This paper provides an overview of the regulation of quality assurance for genetic testing in Australia and New Zealand and outlines the steps currently being taken to critically appraise and improve the regulatory framework in each country. It aims to contextualize this framework within the broader context of quality and patient safety concerns; and to draw together the concerns and recommendations of the various organizations that have been working to improve quality assurance in this area

Medical decision-making on behalf of young children: a comparative perspective

Divulgação dos SUMÁRIOS das obras recentemente incorporadas ao acervo da Biblioteca Ministro Oscar Saraiva do STJ. Em respeito à Lei de Direitos Autorais, não disponibilizamos a obra na íntegra.Localização na estante: 347.635:614.25 M489dCoordenado por: Imogen Goold, Cressida Auckland e Jonathan Herrin

A, B, and C v Ireland

A, B and C is an appeal taken to the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was held that the right to privacy under Article 8 did not confer upon the appellants a right to an abortion. However, Irish law was found to be non-complaint with Article 8 by failing to provide an accessible procedure through which a woman could establish whether she qualified to have a legal abortion in Ireland