J Med Ethics. 2018 Jul;44(7):466-470. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104720. Epub 2018 May 3.
This article critically examines the legal arguments presented on behalf of Charlie Gard's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, based on a threshold test of significant harm for intervention into the decisions made jointly by holders of parental responsibility. It argues that the legal basis of the argument, from the case of Ashya King, was tenuous. It sought to introduce different categories of cases concerning children's medical treatment when, despite the inevitable factual distinctions between individual cases, the duty of the judge in all cases to determine the best interests of the child is firmly established by the case law. It argues that the focus should not have been on a threshold for intervention but on whether his parents had established that the therapy they wanted was a viable alternative therapeutic option. In the April hearing, Charlie's parents relied on the offer of treatment from a US doctor; by July they had an independent panel of international experts supporting their case although by this time the medical evidence was that it was too late for Charlie. One of Charlie's legacies for future disputes may be that his case highlighted the need for evidence as to whether the treatment parents want for their child is a viable alternative therapeutic option before a court can determine which therapeutic option is in the best interests of the child.
这篇文章批判性地审查了代表查理·加德的父母康妮·耶茨和克里斯·加德提出的法律论点，该论点基于对共同承担父母责任的人所做决定进行干预的重大伤害门槛测试。它认为，从阿希亚·金案中得出的法律依据是站不住脚的。它试图引入涉及儿童医疗的不同类别案件，尽管在所有案件中，尽管个别案件之间存在不可避免的事实差异，但法官在所有案件中确定儿童最佳利益的责任都已由判例法确立。它认为，重点不应该放在干预的门槛上，而应该放在父母是否已经证明他们想要的治疗方法是一种可行的替代治疗选择。在 4 月的听证会上，查理的父母依赖于美国医生的治疗方案；到 7 月，他们有一个独立的国际专家小组支持他们的案件，尽管此时医疗证据表明，对查理来说已经太晚了。查理的一个未来争议的遗产可能是，他的案件突出表明，在法院确定哪种治疗方案最符合儿童的利益之前，需要有证据证明父母希望为其孩子提供的治疗方法是否是一种可行的替代治疗选择。
