DOCSLIB.ORG

Worth Living Or Worth Dying? the Views of the General Public About Allowing Disabled Children To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Worth Living Or Worth Dying? the Views of the General Public About Allowing Disabled Children To Extended essay J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/medethics-2019-105639 on 15 October 2019. Downloaded from Worth living or worth dying? The views of the general public about allowing disabled children to die Claudia Brick,1,2 Guy Kahane,2 Dominic Wilkinson ,2,3,4 Lucius Caviola,2,5 Julian Savulescu2,4 ► Additional material is ABSTRact A life not worth living published online only. To view Background Decisions about withdrawal of life Central to these cases of disagreement is the concept please visit the journal online (http:// dx. doi. org/ 10. 1136/ support for infants have given rise to legal battles that in some situations, a child’s degree of disability, medethics- 2019- 105639). between physicians and parents creating intense media severity of illness and/or burden of medical treat- attention. It is unclear how we should evaluate when life ment are so great that it would be best to allow 1Monash University Faculty of is no longer worth living for an infant. Public attitudes them to die. We define the concept as below: Medicine Nursing and Health towards treatment withdrawal and the role of parents Sciences, Clayton, Victoria, A life not worth living (LNWL): A life in which Australia in situations of disagreement have not previously been 2 assessed. future burdens for the individual outweigh benefits. Oxford Uehiro Centre for 9 Practical Ethics, Faculty of Methods An online survey was conducted with a There is negative net future well-being. Philosophy, University of Oxford, sample of the UK public to assess public views about the Oxford, UK It is important to clarify that this concept encom- 3 benefit of life in hypothetical cases similar to real cases John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, passes the future prudential value of the life to the UK heard by the UK courts (eg, Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans). 4 individual concerned (ie, it is not about the value of Murdoch Childrens Research We then evaluated these public views in comparison with i Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, existing ethical frameworks for decision-making. an individual to others). Australia Results One hundred and thirty participants completed 5Department of Experimental the survey. The majority (94%) agreed that an infant’s UK legal perspective Psychology, University of Oxford, Though medical guidelines have been published to Oxford, UK life may have no benefit when well-being falls below a critical level. Decisions to withdraw treatment were aid physicians in these decisions, the most important principles in the UK have evolved through common Correspondence to positively associated with the importance of use of Professor Julian Savulescu, medical resources, the infant’s ability to have emotional (case) law. Because infants have never had decision Faculty of Philosophy, The relationships, and mental abilities. Up to 50% of making capacity or known treatment preferences, Oxford Uehiro Centre for participants in each case believed it was permissible to these decisions must bypass the informed consent Practical Ethics, Oxford OX1 and substituted judgement standards that are first 1PT, UK; either continue or withdraw treatment. turned to in equivalent adult cases.10 Instead, treat- julian. savulescu@ philosophy. Conclusion Despite the controversy, our findings ox. ac. uk ment withdrawal is based on a best interests stan- indicate that in the most severe cases, most people agree 11 that life is not worth living for a profoundly disabled dard, which has been described as encompassing Received 20 June 2019 ‘medical, emotional and all other welfare issues’ Accepted 15 August 2019 infant. Our survey found wide acceptance of at least 7 http://jme.bmj.com/ the permissibility of withdrawal of treatment across a from ‘the assumed point of view of the child’. A range of cases, though also a reluctance to overrule judgement may then be made that, due to a prog- nosis of severe future disability, life would not be parents’ decisions. These findings may be useful when 12 constructing guidelines for clinical practice. worth living. This was further elaborated in the 2006 case of Child MB, when Justice Holman stated that the value of life ‘may be outweighed if the pleasures and the quality of life are sufficiently INTRODUCTION on September 28, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. Decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment and small and the pain and suffering or other burdens 6 allow a child to die are common in paediatric inten- of living are sufficiently great’. Although the finan- sive care units and widely ethically accepted.1–3 cial cost of treatment may be significant in clinical The vast majority of paediatric treatment limitation practice, resources have been considered irrelevant 2 decisions in intensive care units worldwide are made to these legal decisions. through consensus between physicians, patients and their families. However, as with any life-and-death Ethical perspective issue, ethical issues are prominent and disagreement In answering whether a life is worth living, ethi- is not uncommon—and perhaps on the rise.4 5 The cists have frequently turned to the theories of well- increasing capacity of medicine to keep children being, which ask what makes someone’s life go best: these range from subjective views such as hedonism, © Author(s) (or their alive and the increasingly availability of informa- employer(s)) 2019. Re-use tion via the internet and social media means doctors permitted under CC BY. and families may reach different conclusions about i Published by BMJ. It must be emphasised that this does not necessarily whether or when to discontinue life-sustaining lead to a conclusion that it is right to kill those 4 To cite: Brick C, Kahane G, treatment. This has led to multiple high-profile whose lives are believed to be not worth living, but Wilkinson D, et al. court cases, such as that of Charlie Gard in 2017 to say that to continue to live is no longer of benefit J Med Ethics Epub ahead of (box 1). This case did not occur in isolation: other to them. Though some might argue for euthanasia in this context, here we instead concentrate on the print: [please include Day high profile verdicts include those of Child MB in Month Year]. doi:10.1136/ more widely accepted implication that if a life is not medethics-2019-105639 2006, Charlotte Wyatt in 2004 and Alfie Evans in worth living, life sustaining treatment may not, or 2018.6–8 perhaps should not, be continued. Brick C, et al. J Med Ethics 2019;0:1–9. doi:10.1136/medethics-2019-105639 1 Extended essay J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/medethics-2019-105639 on 15 October 2019. Downloaded from interests of family members due to the future burden of care of Box 1 The Charlie Gard case an infant or child with severe impairment.9 16 Charlie Gard was a few months old when he developed progressive Empirical perspective muscle weakness and was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder: The media attention to the Gard case and substantial social Mitochondrial DNA Depletion Syndrome. Soon after, Charlie media support for the family may suggest that the public are was completely paralysed, deaf, had organ dysfunction and was opposed to legal decisions like those made for Charlie Gard .17 dependent on mechanical ventilation at Great Ormond Street However, there is no published data on public attitudes to such Hospital. Physicians believed that further treatment was futile cases, on general understanding of the concept of a LNWL in and life support should be withdrawn, while Charlie’s parents infants or on what grounds people would support treatment had located a US-based specialist who was prepared to trial an withdrawal, if at all. It is unknown whether decisions on these experimental treatment; the parents thus wanted ventilation to questions are influenced by the presence of pain and suffering continue. Six months of legal proceedings ensued, with hearings at (in line with hedonism) or the lack of capacity for human rela- the High Court, the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European tionships (in line with objective list views) or simply by consider- Court of Human Rights all judging in favour of the physicians, ruling ations relating to scarce resources or parental autonomy. that continued treatment would not be in Charlie’s best interests, Existing studies have assessed the views of the public and and that his ‘current quality of life is not one that should be health professionals towards treatment withdrawal in the setting 4 38–40 sustained’. The cases attracted high levels of media and public of adult patients in persistent vegetative state, finding that attention, and garnered opinions from as far afield as the Vatican 66%–92% would support treatment withdrawal.18–21 Studies of and the White House. public attitudes to cases involving children found strong support for parental autonomy in treatment choices, with one study reporting that a large proportion of participants would support where pleasure and pain alone are valued,13 to objective views, parental requests for substandard treatment even at an increased where other goods (such as knowledge, autonomy and relation- risk of death for the child.22 ships) are also considered dimensions of well-being.14 There is However, these studies do not directly shed any light on what a further question of how these well-being judgements should kind of life the public regards as not worth living, and they leave map to treatment decisions. The traditional way of viewing open many questions about public views towards withdrawal of this, as described in the legal judgements, has been labelled a treatment in severely ill infants. The aim of the present study ‘Zero Line View’,9 15 where the point at which treatment must was thus to assess public intuitions towards cases similar to those be withdrawn is the same point at which life has no benefit.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Autonomia Jednostki W Międzynarodowym Prawie
    Agata Wnukiewicz-Kozłowska Wybór tematu recenzowanej monografii należy uznać za wyjątkowo trafny. Aktualność i doniosłość poznawcza podjętej problematyki, a tak- że, co ważne, również jej wartość praktyczna, nie budzą wątpliwości. Syn- tetyczny tytuł pracy jest w pełni adekwatny, dobrze oddaje jej zawartość Agata Wnukiewicz-Kozłowska i główną ideę. [...] Całość rozważań zawartych w monografii koncentruje się na uzasad- nieniu jej głównej tezy o wykształceniu się nowego rodzaju prawa, wywo- Autonomia jednostki w międzynarodowym prawie biomedycznym dzącego się z prawa międzynarodowego publicznego oraz uwzględniają- cego klasyczny kanon praw i wolności jednostki, ale charakteryzującego się istotną odrębnością przedmiotową i specyfiką podmiotową. [...] za- prezentowane w pracy bardzo szerokie uzasadnienie głównej tezy jest wyjątkowo solidne, wszechstronne i przekonywające. Zostało ono oparte Autonomia na imponującym pod względem wielkości i różnorodności materiale ze- branym i wykorzystanym przez Autorkę w toku badań. [...] poza bardzo jednostki licznymi źródłami prawa w ścisłym tego słowa znaczeniu (traktaty, akty w prawa UE, ustawy i inne akty normatywne) w pracy wykorzystano boga- te orzecznictwo sądów międzynarodowych i krajowych, różnego rodzaju międzynarodowym dokumenty, wyniki badań empirycznych, a nawet materiały publicystycz- ne. Autorka dostrzegła i uwzględniła rosnącą, choć ciągle jeszcze niedo- prawie określoną rolę soft law. To bogactwo materiału wykorzystanego w pracy biomedycznym jest jej niewątpliwą zaletą. z recenzji wydawniczej
    [Show full text]
  • To See the Full Programme for the Battle of Ideas 2017
    CONTENTS The Battle of Ideas is an annual festival which 2 Ticket prices and festival information 3 Why the Battle of Ideas? brings together 400-plus speakers for over 3 Registration times 100 debates over the course of the weekend, and through stand-alone satellite events held SATURDAY from September to November throughout the 4 Welcome Address UK and Europe. You can find out more about 4 Saturday Keynote Controversies 6 The Politics of the Personal these satellite events on pages 52–59. 8 Intellectual Life 10 Understanding America This brochure will help you plan and navigate your visit to 12 The New Political Landscape the festival weekend. The debates are organised by room 14 Battle for the Economy or by themed topic areas we call ‘strands’. For example, the 16 Culture Wars ‘Science and Ethics’ strand covers contemporary issues in 18 City Life medicine, genetics and space exploration. The festival is 20 Contemporary Controversies organised so that you can follow one strand throughout the day, or pick and choose debates from different strands on WEEKEND ATTRACTIONS topics that interest you. 22 Battle Specials Whatever you decide to do, with such a wide range of 23 Book Club Salons debates and discussion, we are sure there will be plenty for 24 Lunchtime Shorts everyone to think about. 25 Festival Attractions and Entertainment ESSENTIAL INFORMATION 28 Battlefields: Barbican maps 30 Saturday Timetable 31 Sunday Timetable SUNDAY 32 Sunday Keynote Controversies 34 Eye on the World 36 Debating the Past 38 Law and Order 40 Tech Futures 42 Crisis of Political Language 44 Battle for Education 46 Contemporary Controversies 48 State of the Nation 50 Science and Ethics SATELLITES 52 UK Satellite Events 56 Battle of Ideas Europe 60 Thanks BATTLEOFIDEAS.ORG.UK 1 BOI Brochure 2017 1.7.indd 1 12/10/2017 18:56 BATTLE OF IDEAS TICKETING INFORMATION The Battle of Ideas takes place at the Barbican, London, on Saturday 28 and Sunday 29 October.
    [Show full text]
  • Care of Dying Children and Adults. Ethics, Principles and Issues for Law Reform
    Catholic Medical Quarterly Volume 68(3) August 2018 www.cmq.org.uk Care of dying children and adults. Ethics, principles and issues for law reform Dr Adrian Treloar, FRCP, MRCPych, MRCGP Background The cases of Alfie Evans, Charlie Gard, Charlotte Wyatt, David Glass and Ayesha King have all hit headlines and reverberated around the world. Many have been shocked to see doctors applying to the courts in order to curtail treatment against the clearly expressed wishes of the child's parents. Fierce public debates have raged about the appropriateness of withdrawing treatment but even more strongly about also the denial of parents’ wishes when plans they have made for their child do not appear unreasonable. Whilst public debate on the appropriateness of withdrawing treatment from the child has been fierce that debate has been yet more fierce on the denial of the parents' wishes to have the treatment continued even though their wishes do not appear unreasonable My conclusion is that while limitation of treatment and withdrawal of some treatments is appropriate, the de facto removal of parental authority as a result of referral to the High Court is wrong, and deeply unjust. As well as that, I argue that, in the case of Alfie Evans, the decision by the High Court to deny transfer to other care facilities is deeply concerning and should not have happened. Key issues in the care of dying children and adults Underlying those conclusions and within all the complexity of the debates there are several key issues each of which I explore further in this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • On Charlie Gard: Ethics, Culture, and Religion
    RESEARCH ETHICS/COMPARATIVE CULTURE AND RELIGION J. Heal Ethics Admin Volume 4 | Number 2 (Fall/Winter 2018) www.jheaonline.org ISSN 2474-2309 | doi:10.22461/jhea.1.71618 https://doi.org/10.22461/jhea.1.71618 Published Dec. 20, 2018 On Charlie Gard: Ethics, Culture, and Religion PETER A. CLARK, SJ, PH.D.1 MARVIN J. H. LEE, PH.D.2 AND OLIVIA NGUYEN3 [email protected],1 [email protected],2 [email protected] 1. 2. 3. The Institute of Clinical Bioethics, Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Keywords: Charlie Gard, comparative culture, Richard McCormick, medical futility. Abstract: The 2017 story of Charlie Gard is revisited. Upon the British High Court’s ruling in favor of the physicians that the infant should be allowed to die without the experimental treatment, the view of the public as well as the opinions of bioethicists and Catholic bishops are divided, interestingly along with a cultural line. American bioethicists and Catholic bishops tend to believe that the parents should have the final say while British/European bioethicists and Catholic bishops in general side with the court’s decision. The paper explores the place of culture in bioethical reasoning between the UK/Europe and the US while claiming that cultural differences are more important than geopolitical or religious differences to understand the bioethical positions of a group. In addition, the authors introduce a decision-making program for handicapped neonates which is developed by the American Jesuit Bioethicist, Richard McCormick, and modified further by the contemporary American Jesuit Bioethicist, Peter A.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy and Practice of Bioethics Across and Between Cultures
    Philosophy and Practice of Bioethics across and between Cultures Editors: Takao Takahashi, Nader Ghotbi & Darryl R. J. Macer Eubios Ethics Institute 2019 ii Philosophy and Practice of Bioethics Across and Between Cultures Eubios Ethics Institute Christchurch Tsukuba Science City Bangkok Cataloging-in-Publication data Philosophy and Practice of Bioethics across and between Cultures / Takahashi, Takao / Ghotbi, Nader / Macer, Darryl R.J. Christchurch, N.Z.: Eubios Ethics Institute ©2019. Copyright © 2019 Eubios Ethics Institute All rights reserved. The copyright for the complete publication is held by the Eubios Ethics Institute. The material may be used in education provided the copies are provided free of charge. No part of this publication may be reproduced for commercial use, without the prior written permission of the Eubios Ethics Institute. http://www.eubios.info/ 1 v. 22 Chapters. ISBN 978-0-908897-33-9 1. Bioethics. 2. Medical ethics. 3. Ethics. 4. Peace. 5. Philosophy. 6. Justice. 7. Disaster. 8. Information technology ethics. 9. Japan. 10. Asian Studies. 2. I. Takahashi, Takao, 1948. II. Ghotbi, Nader, 1967. III. Macer, Darryl Raymund Johnson, 1962. IV. Eubios Ethics Institute. V. Title (Philosophy and Practice of Bioethics across and between Cultures). The Eubios Ethics Institute is a nonprofit group that aims to stimulate the discussion of ethical issues, and how we may use new technology in ways consistent with "good life". An important part of this dialogue is to function as an information source for those with similar concerns. Publications are available through the website www.eubios.info, and refer to the ordering guidelines in this book. The views expressed in this book do not necessarily represent the views of the Eubios Ethics Institute, nor the editors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Charlie Gard Case: British and American Approaches to Court Resolution of Disputes Over Medical Decisions
    OPEN Journal of Perinatology (2017) 37, 1268–1271 www.nature.com/jp COMMENTARY The Charlie Gard case: British and American approaches to court resolution of disputes over medical decisions JJ Paris1,2, J Ahluwalia3, BM Cummings4, MP Moreland5 and DJ Wilkinson6,7 Journal of Perinatology (2017) 37, 1268–1271; doi:10.1038/jp.2017.138; United States identified by the court as ‘Dr I.’ To finance the published online 19 October 2017 treatment the parents raised £1.3 million. The disagreement between the parents and the physicians in this case was not about cost, it was whether or not the experimental therapy ought to be tried on Charlie. The parents wanted it done. The physicians were For those whose bodies are riddled with disease, [Aclepius] opposed. They believed that continued intensive care and the did not attempt to prescribe a regimen in order to make proposed nucleoside treatment were ‘futile.’ their life a prolonged misery. Medicine isn’t intended for A British Court was petitioned to approve an order ‘that it is ’ fi such people ... even if they are richer than Midas. lawful, and in Charlie s best interests, for arti cial ventilation to be Plato, The Republic, Bk III. withdrawn ... and for his treating clinicians to provide him with palliative care only.’ The request was a direct challenge to the parent’s hopes. The case was assigned to Mr Justice Francis of the Family Division INTRODUCTION of the High Court. The judge made clear from the outset that ‘This ’ ‘ On 8 June 2017, the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom case is not about money.
    [Show full text]
  • Disagreements in the Care of Critically Ill Children: Emerging Issues in a Changing Landscape
    LITERATURE REVIEW Disagreements in the care of critically ill children: emerging issues in a changing landscape Dr Neera Bhatia 1 Senior Lecturer in Law, Deakin University, School of Law, Melbourne, Australia September 2018 Note The author was commissioned by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics to write this review to inform its work on the disagreements that can arise in the care of critically ill children. Any views expressed in the paper are the author’s own and not those of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 1 Correspondence to: [email protected] . Dr Neera Bhatia undertook the review and provided the first draft; Dr Giles Birchley (University of Bristol, Centre for Ethics in Medicine) provided advice and comments on the first draft; Professor Richard Huxtable and Dr Jonathan Ives (University of Bristol, Centre for Ethics in Medicine) provided further edits to subsequent drafts. 1 Contents Summary .............................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 6 Findings ................................................................................................................................ 7 A: The role and impact of the internet, social media, and crowdfunding............................
    [Show full text]
  • The Charlie Gard Case
    CHAPTER 1 The Charlie Gard case ‘Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end; then stop.’ Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll Shortly after three o’clock on the 28th of July 2017, in a private room of a specialised hospice in suburban London, staff disconnected the breathing machine that was keeping alive 11-month-old infant Charlie Gard. Lying on either side of him, his parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard held his hands, leaned close and talked to him. They spoke to him of how proud they were of him. They saw him open his eyes briefly, and close them. Minutes later Charlie’s heart stopped, and he was gone.1 This was the conclusion – quiet, private and fleeting – to a dispute about medical treatment that had been none of those things. In the preceding 4 months, a protracted series of court hearings around disputed treatment for Charlie Gard had yielded global media attention and an outpouring of sympathy from onlookers around the world. It had attracted statements of support from many public figures, including US President Trump and the Pope. Charlie’s parents had been seeking experimental treatment that might improve his rare genetic condition. They had raised funds for him to travel to the US, where a medical specialist had offered to provide treatment. Many observers could not understand why the doctors at London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital opposed the requested treatment. Many found it hard to see why the UK and European courtsa had decided against Charlie’s parents and authorised withdrawal of life support.
    [Show full text]
  • Hard Lessons: Learning from the Charlie Gard Case Dominic Wilkinson,1,2 Julian Savulescu1,3,4
    Charlie Gard J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/medethics-2017-104492 on 2 August 2017. Downloaded from Hard lessons: learning from the Charlie Gard case Dominic Wilkinson,1,2 Julian Savulescu1,3,4 1Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford On 24 July 2017, the long-running, deeply tragic have had no chance at all of securing the improve- Uehiro Centre for Practical and emotionally fraught case of Charlie Gard ment they desired). We have both disagreed about Ethics, University of Oxford, reached its sad conclusion (box 1). Following whether this harm threshold was reached, and Oxford, UK 2Newborn Care Unit, John further medical assessment of the infant, Charlie’s consequently whether Charlie's parents' request Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK parents and doctors finally reached agreement that should have been granted.1 2 3Murdoch Childrens Research continuing medical treatment was not in Charlie’s Institute (Visiting), Melbourne, best interests. Life support was subsequently with- Australia DECISIONS FOR ADULTS VERSUS DECISIONS 4Melbourne Law School drawn and Charlie died on 28 July 2017. (Visiting), Melbourne, Australia Over the course of multiple hearings at different FOR CHILDREN: ALLOW ADULTS TO CHOOSE levels of courts in both London and Strasbourg, the TREATMENT FOR THEMSELVES EVEN IF Correspondence to Charlie Gard case has raised a number of vexed SUBOPTIMAL Professor Julian Savulescu, ethical questions (box 2). The important role of While there has been intense debate about whether Oxford Uehiro Centre for practical ethics in cases like this is to help clarify or not requested treatment should be provided to Practical Ethics, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK; the key concepts, identify central ethical questions, Charlie Gard, it is important not to extrapolate julian.
    [Show full text]
  • The Charlie Gard Case, and the Ethics of Obstructing International Transfer of Seriously Ill Children Dominic Wilkinson, MBBS, Dphil
    The Charlie Gard Case, and the Ethics of Obstructing International Transfer of Seriously Ill Children Dominic Wilkinson, MBBS, DPhil abstract In 2017, the court case over medical treatment of UK infant, Charlie Gard, reached global attention. In this article, I will analyze one of the more distinctive elements of the case. The UK courts concluded that treatment of Charlie Gard was not in his best interests and that it would be permissible to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. However, in addition, the court ruled that Charlie should not be transferred overseas for the treatment that his parents sought, even though specialists in Italy and the US were willing to provide that treatment. Is it ethical to prevent parents from pursuing life-prolonging treatment overseas for their children? If so, when is it ethical to do this? I will outline arguments in defense of obstructing transfer in some situations. I will argue, however, that this is only justified if there is good reason to think that the proposed treatment would cause harm. Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom; and Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Dr Wilkinson conceptualized and designed the study, drafted the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2020-0818K Accepted for publication May 18, 2020 Address correspondence to Dominic Wilkinson, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Suite 8, Littlegate House, St Ebbes St, Oxford OX1 1PT, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275).
    [Show full text]
  • Hard Lessons: Learning from the Charlie Gard Case Dominic Wilkinson,1,2 Julian Savulescu1,3,4
    Charlie Gard J Med Ethics: first published as 10.1136/medethics-2017-104492 on 2 August 2017. Downloaded from Hard lessons: learning from the Charlie Gard case Dominic Wilkinson,1,2 Julian Savulescu1,3,4 1Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford On 24 July 2017, the long-running, deeply tragic have had no chance at all of securing the improve- Uehiro Centre for Practical and emotionally fraught case of Charlie Gard ment they desired). We have both disagreed about Ethics, University of Oxford, reached its sad conclusion (box 1). Following whether this harm threshold was reached, and Oxford, UK 2Newborn Care Unit, John further medical assessment of the infant, Charlie’s consequently whether Charlie's parents' request Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK parents and doctors finally reached agreement that should have been granted.1 2 3Murdoch Childrens Research continuing medical treatment was not in Charlie’s Institute (Visiting), Melbourne, best interests. Life support was subsequently with- Australia DECISIONS FOR ADULTS VERSUS DECISIONS 4Melbourne Law School drawn and Charlie died on 28 July 2017. (Visiting), Melbourne, Australia Over the course of multiple hearings at different FOR CHILDREN: ALLOW ADULTS TO CHOOSE levels of courts in both London and Strasbourg, the TREATMENT FOR THEMSELVES EVEN IF Correspondence to Charlie Gard case has raised a number of vexed SUBOPTIMAL Professor Julian Savulescu, ethical questions (box 2). The important role of While there has been intense debate about whether Oxford Uehiro Centre for practical ethics in cases like this is to help clarify or not requested treatment should be provided to Practical Ethics, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK; the key concepts, identify central ethical questions, Charlie Gard, it is important not to extrapolate julian.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bioethical Paradigm for Enhanced, Post Or Transhumans in Medicine and Biological Research
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Summer 8-8-2020 A Bioethical Paradigm for Enhanced, Post or Transhumans in Medicine and Biological Research Roderick Williams Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Part of the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, and the Medical Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Williams, R. (2020). A Bioethical Paradigm for Enhanced, Post or Transhumans in Medicine and Biological Research (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/1923 This One-year Embargo is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. A BIOETHICAL PARADIGM FOR ENHANCED, POST OR TRANSHUMANS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH A Dissertation Submitted to the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Roderick K. Williams August 2020 Copyright by Roderick K. Williams 2020 A BIOETHICAL PARADIGM FOR ENHANCED, POST OR TRANSHUMANS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH By Roderick K. Williams Approved May 07, 2020 ________________________ ________________________ Joris Gielen, PhD Gerard Magill, PhD Director, Center for Healthcare Ethics Vernon F. Gallagher Chair for Associate Professor Healthcare Ethics Integration of Science, Theology, (Dissertation Chair) Philosophy and Law Professor of Healthcare Ethics (Committee Member) ________________________ _____________________ Joris Gielen, PhD Peter Osuji, PhD Associate Professor Assistant Professor Center for Healthcare Ethics Healthcare Ethics (Committee Member) (Committee Member) Kristine Blair, PhD Dean, McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Professor and Dean of McAnulty College (Dean) iii ABSTRACT A BIOETHICAL PARADIGM FOR ENHANCED, POST OR TRANSHUMANS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH By Roderick K.
    [Show full text]