header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 September 2018 / Carmel Shachar , David Locke
Issue: 7807 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

In whose best interests?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7807_locke

David Locke & Carmel Shachar consider the impact of globalised medicine on withdrawal of treatment decisions in the UK

  • Is it a reality that developed jurisdictions (other than the UK) permit treatment contrary to the best interests of children simply because either it is the wish of the parents, or because they can pay for it? Or is the real divergence in the applied definition of ‘best interests’?
  • Since it can reasonably be anticipated that these are arguments which will be raised in front of the courts again, it is important that proper scrutiny is given to the assertions.

As a feature of the progressive globalisation of medicine, the recent, heavily litigated, trio of cases involving the withdrawal of treatment from infants (Charlie Gard, Isaiah Haastrup and Alfie Evans) has highlighted what is asserted to be an international cultural, medical and medico-legal divergence in relation to the issues of futility, ‘best interests’ and the parental role in decisions to withdraw treatment from children.

The first instance decision in the Charlie Gard case, Great Ormond

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridgestrengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll