Reasonable Parental and Medical Obligations in Pediatric Extraordinary Therapy

Abstract

The English cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans involved a conflict between the desires of their parents to preserve their children’s lives and judgments of their medical teams in pursuit of clinically appropriate therapy. The treatment the children required was clearly extraordinary, including a wide array of advanced life-sustaining technological support. The cases exemplify a clash of worldviews rooted in different philosophies of life and medical care. The article highlights the differing perspectives on parental authority in medical care in England, Canada, and the United States. Furthermore, it proposes a solution that accommodates for both reasonable parental desires and professional medical opinion. This is achieved by looking at concepts of extraordinary therapy, best interest, reasonable parenthood and medical objections.

Summary: In cases where a child’s treatment involves extraordinary therapy, there is often a conflict of opinion between the medical team and the parents with regard to the best course of action. The assumption should be that responsible, caring parents make reasonable and acceptable decisions for the good of their children. Rather than focusing on making a hypothetical best interest judgment, courts should in the first instance side with the parents. Only when parents act unreasonably or malevolently should their wishes be overridden. This should not affect the medics' right to conscientiously object towards carrying out procedures that they deem to be medically unnecessary or harmful.