The pace of change and, indeed, the sheer number of clinical ethics committees has accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Committees were formed to support healthcare professionals and to operationalise, interpret and compensate for gaps in national and professional guidance. But as the role of clinical ethics support becomes more prominent and visible, it becomes ever more important to address gaps in the support structure and misconceptions as to role and remit. The recent case of Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children (...) NHS Foundation Trust v MX, FX and X, [21]–[23] and [58]) has highlighted the importance of patient/family representation at clinical ethics committee meetings. The court viewed these meetings as making decisions about such treatment. We argue that this misunderstands the role of ethics support, with treatment decisions remaining with the clinical team and those providing their consent. The considered review by clinical ethics committees of the moral issues surrounding complex treatment decisions is not a matter of determining a single ethical course of action. In this article, we consider current legal understandings of clinical ethics committees, explore current concepts of ethics support and suggest how they may evolve, considering the various mechanisms of the inclusion of patients and their representatives in ethics meetings which is not standard in the UK. (shrink)

This article examines Re Imogen (No 6) (2020) 61 Fam LR 344, a decision of the Family Court of Australia, which held that an application to the Family Court is mandatory if a parent or a medical practitioner of a child or adolescent diagnosed with gender dysphoria disputes the diagnosis, the capacity to consent, or the proposed treatment. First, we explain the regulatory framework for the medical treatment of gender dysphoria in children and adolescents, including the development of the welfare (...) jurisdiction under Section 67ZC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). We then provide an overview of the Re Imogen decision, and discuss the balancing exercise involved in determining a child’s best interests in the medical treatment context. We challenge the Family Court’s conclusion that, in relation to a dispute about diagnosis or treatment, a finding that the child or adolescent is Gillick competent to consent to treatment is not determinative, and the Family Court must determine the dispute. We argue that this conclusion represents an unjustified incursion into the right of Gillick competent transgender children and adolescents to make decisions about their own bodies and identities, and that the protective role of parents and the Family Court cannot justify interfering with their bodily autonomy in this context. Finally, we propose an alternative regulatory framework that removes the Family Court from the medical treatment process for gender dysphoria in circumstances of dispute between a parent and their Gillick competent child. (shrink)

Given the costs of litigation high-profile court cases about withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment for seriously ill children in England & Wales tend to be followed by discussion about how to avoid similar cases in future. Whilst two proposals, mediation and replacing the best interests standard with a harm threshold, have received broad attention, a proposal to replace the court by a specialist review committee has not been further investigated. This article analyses the effects of a putative replacement of the courts (...) by a specialist review committee using the process enacted by the futility clauses in the Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA) as a model. Under TADA life-sustaining treatment may legally be withdrawn when a review committee deems it futile and no alternative healthcare provider can be identified. The investigation finds that installing a national review committee with the power to decide whether life-sustaining treatment is futile would have reduced the number of court cases about withdrawal thereof in England & Wales to a handful over the last 3 decades. In addition to shorter procedures and costs savings, a national review committee modelled after TADA would have advantages for both clinicians and parents. Advantages for clinicians are more limited exposure to delivery of clinical care that may cause moral distress and less exposure to adverse press and social media content. Advantages for parents are that the process would establish them as ethical decision makers and offer the possibility of a transfer of the care of the child provided an alternative healthcare provider can be found. As such decisions taken by a specialist review committee may be more acceptable for parents than those of the courts. (shrink)