This book provides a comprehensive examination of the legal regulation of the provision of healthcare to young children in England and Wales. A critical analysis is given on the law governing the provision of healthcare to young and dependent children identifying an understanding of the child as vulnerable and in need of protection, including from his or her own parents. The argument is made for a conceptual framework of relational responsibilities which would ensure that consideration is given to the needs of the child as an individual, to the experiences of parents gained as they care for their child and that the wider context, such as attitudes towards disability, public health issues or the support and resources available, is examined. This book makes an important contribution to understanding the law regulating the provision of healthcare to young and dependent children and to the development of a discourse of responsibility.

The high profile cases of Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans, and Tafida Raqeeb raised the questions as to why the state intrudes into the exercise of parental responsibility concerning the medical treatment of children and why parents may not be permitted to decide what is in the best interests of their child. This book answers these questions. It argues for a reframing of the law concerned with the medical treatment of children to one which better protects the welfare of the individual child, within the context of family relationships recognising the duties which professionals have to care for the child and that the welfare of children is a matter of public interest, protected through the intervention of the state. This book undertakes a rigorous critical analysis of the case law concerned with the provision of medical treatment to children since the first reported cases over forty years ago. It argues that understanding of the cases only as disputes over the best interests of the child, and judicial resolution thereof, fails to recognise professional duties and public responsibilities for the welfare and protection of children that exist alongside parental responsibilities and which justify public, or state, intervention into family life and parental decision-making. Whilst the principles and approach of the court established in the early cases endure, the nature and balance of these responsibilities to children in their care need to be understood in the changing social, legal, and political context in which they are exercised and enforced by the court. The book will be a valuable resource for academics, students, and practitioners of Medical Law, Healthcare Law, Family Law, Social Work, Medicine, Nursing, and Bioethics.

This book examines the idea of 'parental responsibility' in English law and what is expected of a responsible parent. The scope of 'parental responsibility', a key concept in family law, is undefined and often ambiguous. Yet, to date, more attention has been paid to how individuals acquire parental responsibility than to the question of the rights, powers, duties and responsibilities they have once they obtain it. This book redresses the balance by providing the first sustained examination of the different elements of parental responsibility, bringing together leading scholars to comment on specific aspects of its operation. The book begins by exploring the conceptual underpinnings of parental responsibility in the context of parents' and children's rights. The analysis highlights the inherent constraints and limitations of 'parental responsibility' and how its scope has deliberately been curtailed in certain contexts. The book then considers what parental responsibility allows and requires in specific areas, for example, naming a child, education, religious upbringing, medical treatment, corporal punishment, dealing with any contracts entered into or property owned by the child, representing the child in legal proceedings, consenting to a child's marriage or civil partnership and the law's response to the death of a child. In the final section, the idea of the 'responsible parent' is considered in the contexts of child support, contact, tort, and criminal law. This title is included in Bloomsbury Professional's Family Law online service.

Setting the scene -- Best interests and consent -- Refusal of consent -- Withholding and withdrawing treatment from infants and young children -- Medical research and innovative treatment -- Best interests between children : donation of tissues and organs and conjoined twins.

"The question of whether and how decisions are made in respect of a child's medical treatment has become a matter of significant public controversy following the highly publicised cases of Charlie Gard (Great Ormond Street Hospital v Yates [2017]) and Alfie Evans (Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust v Evans et al [2018]). In light of this background, this timely collection brings together commentators from law, medical ethics and clinical medicine, actively drawing on the view from the clinic as well as philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should decide about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In particular, the collection looks at whether the current 'best interests' threshold is the appropriate boundary for legal intervention, or whether it is appropriate to adopt the 'risk of significant harm' approach proposed in Yates. Moreover, it explores the respective roles of parents, doctors and the courts and the possible risks of inappropriate state intrusion in parental decision-making, and how we might address them"--

In the wake of the Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases, a wide-ranging international conversation was started regarding alternative thresholds for intervention and the different balances that can be made in weighing up the rights and interests of the child, the parent's rights and responsibilities and the role of medical professionals and the courts. This collection provides a comparative perspective on these issues by bringing together analysis from a range of jurisdictions across Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. Contextualising the differences and similarities, and drawing out the cultural and social values that inform the approach in different countries, this volume is highly valuable to scholars across jurisdictions, not only to inform their own local debate on how best to navigate such cases, but also to foster inter-jurisdictional debate on the issues. The book brings together commentators from the fields of law, medical ethics, and clinical medicine across the world, actively drawing on the view from the clinic as well as philosophical, legal and sociological perspectives on the crucial question of who should decide about the fate of a child suffering from a serious illness. In doing so, the collection offers comprehensive treatment of the key questions around whether the current best interests approach is still appropriate, and if not, what the alternatives are. It engages head-on with the concerns seen in both the academic and popular literature that there is a need to reconsider the orthodoxy in this area.

In Failure to Flourish: How Law Undermines Family Relationships, Clare Huntington argues that the legal regulation of families stands fundamentally at odds with the needs of families. Strong, stable, positive relationships within families are essential for both individuals and society to flourish, but from transportation policy to the criminal justice system, and from divorce rules to the child welfaresystem, the law makes it harder for parents to provide children with the relationships they need.