Where a decision has been made to stop futile treatment of critically ill patients on an intensive care unit – what is termed withdrawal of treatment in the UK – yet no doctor is available to perform the actions of withdrawal, nurses may be called upon to perform key tasks. In this paper I present two moral justifications for this activity by offering answers to two major questions. One is to ask if it can be in patients' best interests for (...) nurses to be the key actors in withdrawal of life‐sustaining treatment. The other is to ask if there is any reason that the nursing profession should not undertake such tasks if this is so. Both these questions require the resolution of weighty moral and philosophical issues. Thus, while offering a serious attempt to provide moral justifications for nurses undertaking withdrawal, this paper also invites debate over both the aim of task division between nurses and doctors, and how we might decide what is in the best interests of patients. (shrink)

In an earlier paper I argued that we do not have an objective conception of best interests and that this is a particular problem because the courts describe that they use an ‘…objective approach or test. That test is the best interests of the patient’ when choosing for children. I further argued that there was no obvious way in which we could hope to develop an objective notion of best interests. As well as this, I argued that a best-interest-based approach (...) was a particular problem around the time of death of some children. A response from a legal perspective argued that, while there is not a clear conception of objective best interests, the courts have a well-described approach to finding a child's objective best interests. In this paper, I argue that without clear agreement on an objective conception of best interests, the courts are unable to locate an objective sense of best interests and that the solutions do not solve the problems that were identified in the initial paper ‘Death and best interests’. (shrink)

When shared decision making breaks down and parents and medical providers have developed entrenched and conflicting views, ethical frameworks are needed to find a way forward. This article reviews the evolution of thought about the best interest standard and then discusses the advantages of the harm principle (HP) and the zone of parental discretion (ZPD). Applying these frameworks to parental refusals in situations of complexity and uncertainty presents challenges that necessitate concrete substeps to analyze the big picture and identify key (...) questions. I outline and defend a new decision-making tool that includes three parts: identifying the nature of the disagreement, checklists for key elements of the HP and ZPD, and a “think list” of specific questions designed to enhance use of the HP and ZPD in clinical decision making. These tools together will assist those embroiled in complex disagreements to disentangle the issues to find a path to resolution. (shrink)

In the context of critically ill children, Baines contended that the best interests test was neither objective nor coherent, and thus of little applicability in making end-of-life decisions. In reply, Bridgeman attempted to refute these claims through legal analysis and contended that the doctrine allowed for responsive, fact-specific, context-sensitive and prudential reasoning. This paper is a response to Bridgeman, and argues that an examination of case law reveals the subjective and value-laden nature of the test. Courts must make decisions in (...) contested cases, but there is no reason to hold that a judge can divine the best interests of a critically ill child better than either parents or medical staff. This paper analyses a number of cases where judicial decisions appear at odds with the child's best interests, and argues that as the outcome depends upon the value system of the decision-maker the test is unhelpful in contested end-of-life cases. (shrink)

BackgroundIn the ruling inY[2018], the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that there is no general requirement for the courts in England and Wales to authorise the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness. The perceived requirement, which originated in a court ruling in 1993, encompassed those in the vegetative state and those in the minimally conscious state. The ruling inYconfirms that the court may still be approached to decide difficult or contested cases, but (...) there is otherwise no routine requirement that the judges be approached.Main bodyThere is much to welcome in this ruling, particularly as it means that these decisions for these patients are no longer (unusually) singled out for a judicial decision, with all the financial and emotional costs that court proceedings can entail. However, there is also a risk that the ruling might have unwelcome consequences. First, there is the possibility that patients might die too soon, particularly if doctors should now adopt the courts’ previous reasoning, which has suggested that patients in the vegetative state lack interests, so treatment may – perhaps must – be withdrawn. Secondly, there is the converse possibility that patients might live too long, since empirical research suggests that – whether intentionally or not – patients’ families, clinicians, and the health system appear to promote treatment-by-default.ConclusionRather than adopt general positions, which may be contestable and potentially risky, this article argues, on a pluralistic basis, that the individual patient should be the focus of any decision made in his or her ‘best interests’. The existing legal framework in England and Wales, which is provided by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, already points in this direction, although more efforts may be needed to ensure that those involved in making these decisions are suitably educated and supported. Fortunately, new guidance from the British Medical Association could help clinicians and families to make decisions in the future, which are appropriate for the incapacitated individual patient in question. (shrink)

Dealing with situations where parents’ views about treatment for their child are strongly opposed to doctors’ views is one major area of ethical challenge in paediatric health care. The traditional approach focuses on the child’s best interests, but this is problematic for a number of reasons. The Harm Principle test is regarded by many ethicists as more appropriate than the best interests test. Despite this, use of the best interests test for intervening in parental decisions is still very common in (...) clinical settings and can lead to confusion. In this paper, I propose the Zone of Parental Discretion as a means of putting into practice the key ideas of the Harm Principle, in a clear, step-by-step process. The Zone of Parental Discretion provides a tool for ethical deliberation by clinicians and ethicists about all situations in which parents and doctors disagree about treatment of a child, whether parents are refusing medically recommended treatment, or requesting non-recommended treatment. (shrink)