An intractable dispute: When parents and professionals disagree

Medical Law Review

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 412-418

  Brazier, Margot ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 28544453187     PISSN: 09670742     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fwi029     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Re Wyatt (A Child) (Medical Treatment: Stay of Order) [2005] All E.R. (D) 294.
2. [2005] E.W.H.C. 693 (Fam.).
3. See R v. Arthur (1981) 12 B.M.L.R. 1;
4. Re B (A Minor) [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1421 C.A.
5. Such was the concern over the legality and ethics of prolonging the life of very sick newborn infants that proposals for legislation on neonaticide were advanced; see M. Brazier, Medicine, Patients and the Law (Penguin 2003) at 341-3.
6. Note also the full and extensive guidance offered by professional bodies: Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Withholding or Withdrawing Life Sustaining Treatment in Children: A Framework for Practice, 2nd edn (May 2004);
7. British Association of Perinatal Medicine, Memorandum: Fetuses and Newborn Infants at the Threshold of Viability: A Framework for Practice (July 2000).
8. Re L (Medical Treatment: Benefit) [2004] E.W.H.C. 2713 (Fam.).
9. See Sunday Times, 17.10.04.
10. See Daily Mail, 13.10.04;
11. The News of the World, 10.10.04.
12. [2004] E.W.H.C. 2247 at para. 1.
13. At para. 4.
14. At para. 14.
15. At para. 11.
16. [1990] 3 All E.R. 930 at 945, C.A.
17. At para. 33.
18. [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1421, C.A.
19. Notably Re A (Medical Treatment. Male Sterilisation) [2000] 1 F.L.R. 549
20. and Re S (Adult Patient; Sterilisation) [2001] Fam 15, C.A.
21. Even though, strictly speaking, the Bolam principle was not formally anchored to the determination of a minor's best interests, it is suggested that the pervasiveness of the principle had considerable impact in this domain: M. Brazier and J.Miola 'Bye Bye Bolam: A Medical Litigation Revolution' (2000) 8 Med. L. Rev. 85.
22. See s. 31(2) of the Children Act 1989.
23. Supra, n. 6.
24. See Re T [1997]1 All E.R. 906 at 917;
25. Glass v. United Kingdom [2004] 1 F.L.R. 1019 (E.C.H.R.).
26. Re Wyatt (No.3) (A Child) (Medical Treatment: Continuation of Order) at para. 8.
27. At para. 15.
28. The judge's insistence that Charlotte be allowed a peaceful death also influenced his determination to refuse to delay any decision about re-ventilations; see paras 19-22.
29. Note that in this case the judge alludes to the difficulty of finding a neonatal unit where Charlotte could be re-ventilated.
30. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (supra, n. 3) at para. 2.3.1.1.
31. At para. 18.