What should happen when doctors and parents disagree about what would be
best for a child? When should courts become involved? Should life
support be stopped against parents' wishes?
The case of Charlie Gard, reached global attention in 2017. It led to
widespread debate about the ethics of disagreements between doctors and
parents, about the place of the law in such disputes, and about the
variation in approach between different parts of the world.
In this book, medical ethicists Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu
critically examine the ethical questions at the heart of disputes about
medical treatment for children. They use the Gard case as a springboard
to a wider discussion about the rights of parents, the harms of
treatment, and the vital issue of limited resources. They discuss other
prominent UK and international cases of disagreement and conflict.
From opposite sides of the debate Wilkinson and Savulescu provocatively
outline the strongest arguments in favour of and against treatment. They
analyse some of the distinctive and challenging features of treatment
disputes in the 21st century and argue that disagreement
about controversial ethical questions is both inevitable and desirable.
They outline a series of lessons from the Gard case and propose a
radical new 'dissensus' framework for future cases of disagreement.
.
- This new book critically examines the core ethical questions at the
heart of disputes about medical treatment for children.
- The contents review prominent cases of disagreement from the UK and
internationally and analyse some of the distinctive and challenging
features around treatment disputes in the 21st century.
- The book proposes a radical new framework for future cases of
disagreement around the care of gravely ill people.
