• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

PMID:30835404
Abstract

What should happen when doctors and parents disagree about what would be best for a child? When should courts become involved? Should life support be stopped against parents' wishes? The case of Charlie Gard, reached global attention in 2017. It led to widespread debate about the ethics of disagreements between doctors and parents, about the place of the law in such disputes, and about the variation in approach between different parts of the world. In this book, medical ethicists Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu critically examine the ethical questions at the heart of disputes about medical treatment for children. They use the Gard case as a springboard to a wider discussion about the rights of parents, the harms of treatment, and the vital issue of limited resources. They discuss other prominent UK and international cases of disagreement and conflict. From opposite sides of the debate Wilkinson and Savulescu provocatively outline the strongest arguments in favour of and against treatment. They analyse some of the distinctive and challenging features of treatment disputes in the 21st century and argue that disagreement about controversial ethical questions is both inevitable and desirable. They outline a series of lessons from the Gard case and propose a radical new “dissensus” framework for future cases of disagreement.

摘要

相似文献

1
2
The Charlie Gard Case, and the Ethics of Obstructing International Transfer of Seriously Ill Children.查理·加德案与阻挠重病儿童国际转移的伦理道德
Pediatrics. 2020 Aug;146(Suppl 1):S54-S59. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0818K.
3
In defense of a conditional harm threshold test for paediatric decision-making为儿科决策中的条件性伤害阈值测试辩护
4
Charlie Gard: in defence of the law.查理·盖德案:捍卫法律
J Med Ethics. 2018 Jul;44(7):476-480. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104721. Epub 2018 May 3.
5
Current controversies and irresolvable disagreement: the case of Vincent Lambert and the role of 'dissensus'.当前的争议和无法解决的分歧:以文森特·兰伯特案和“分歧”的作用为例。
J Med Ethics. 2019 Oct;45(10):631-635. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105622. Epub 2019 Aug 8.
6
Ethics of Procuring and Using Organs or Tissue from Infants and Newborns for Transplantation, Research, or Commercial Purposes: Protocol for a Bioethics Scoping Review.从婴儿和新生儿获取器官或组织用于移植、研究或商业目的的伦理问题:生物伦理学范围审查方案
Wellcome Open Res. 2024 Dec 5;9:717. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.23235.1. eCollection 2024.
7
Resolving Disagreement: A Multi-Jurisdictional Comparative Analysis of Disputes About Children's Medical Care.解决争议:儿童医疗保健纠纷的多法域比较分析。
Med Law Rev. 2020 Dec 17;28(4):643-674. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwaa020.
8
When Doctors and Parents Don't Agree: The story of Charlie Gard.当医生与家长意见相左时:查理·加德的故事。
J Bioeth Inq. 2017 Dec;14(4):461-468. doi: 10.1007/s11673-017-9814-9. Epub 2017 Nov 6.
9
Is 'best interests' the right standard in cases like that of Charlie Gard?在类似查理·盖德(Charlie Gard)的案例中,“最佳利益”是正确的标准吗?
J Med Ethics. 2020 Jan;46(1):16-17. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105808. Epub 2019 Oct 29.
10
In Favour of Medical Dissensus: Why We Should Agree to Disagree About End-of-Life Decisions.支持医学上的分歧:为何我们应该就临终决策达成不同意见。
Bioethics. 2016 Feb;30(2):109-18. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12162. Epub 2015 Apr 23.