Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCherkassky, Lisa*
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-16T16:32:08Z
dc.date.available2018-02-16T16:32:08Z
dc.date.issued2014-12-01
dc.identifier.citationCherkassky, L. (2015) 'Children and the doctrine of substituted judgement', Medical Law International, 14 (4):213.en
dc.identifier.issn09685332
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0968533215571955
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10545/622154
dc.description.abstractThe common law in the United Kingdom dictates that children facing medical treatment should be treated in accordance with their best interests. The Children Act 1989 also demands that the welfare of the child is paramount. However, in light of the creation of saviour siblings after the case of Quintavalle, it is disputed that the donor child is treated in accordance with his/her best interests when undergoing a non-therapeutic procedure for the benefit of another. The Human Tissue Authority (HTA) can, for example, validate a bone marrow harvest on a child created specifically for harvest without the consent of the High Court. The doctrine of substituted judgement was developed in the United States to substitute a previously competent adult decision, but it is proposed that parents of saviour siblings are reviving it in a modified form to install a speculative psychological benefit into the saviour child to satisfy the criteria for a harvest in common law. As a result, there is a glaring discrepancy between the objective jurisdiction of the courts and the validation of non-therapeutic harvesting procedures upon children by the HTA, opening the door to potential legal action.
dc.description.sponsorshipN/Aen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSageen
dc.relation.urlhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0968533215571955en
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Medical Law Internationalen
dc.subjectSaviour siblingsen
dc.subjectBioethicsen
dc.subjectDonorsen
dc.subjectUK lawen
dc.titleChildren and the doctrine of substituted judgement.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.eissn20479441
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Derbyen
dc.identifier.journalMedical Law Internationalen
dc.contributor.institutionThe University of Derby, UK
html.description.abstractThe common law in the United Kingdom dictates that children facing medical treatment should be treated in accordance with their best interests. The Children Act 1989 also demands that the welfare of the child is paramount. However, in light of the creation of saviour siblings after the case of Quintavalle, it is disputed that the donor child is treated in accordance with his/her best interests when undergoing a non-therapeutic procedure for the benefit of another. The Human Tissue Authority (HTA) can, for example, validate a bone marrow harvest on a child created specifically for harvest without the consent of the High Court. The doctrine of substituted judgement was developed in the United States to substitute a previously competent adult decision, but it is proposed that parents of saviour siblings are reviving it in a modified form to install a speculative psychological benefit into the saviour child to satisfy the criteria for a harvest in common law. As a result, there is a glaring discrepancy between the objective jurisdiction of the courts and the validation of non-therapeutic harvesting procedures upon children by the HTA, opening the door to potential legal action.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record