Reasonable Parental and Medical Obligations in Pediatric Extraordinary Therapy

What does the best interests principle of the convention on the rights of the child mean for paediatric healthcare?

The present review analyses the implications of the best interests of the child principle, which is one of the most widely discussed principles of medical ethics and human rights, for paediatric healthcare. As a starting point, it presents the interpretation of the best interests principle by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. On this basis, it points out possible fields of application of the best interests principle with regard to paediatric healthcare and discusses the potential difficulties in the application of the best interests principle. Based on this, it illustrates the implications of the best interests principle for paediatric healthcare through four case studies, which look at ethical dilemmas in paediatric gynaecology, end-of-life care, HIV care and genetic testing.   Conclusion: The best interests principle requires action, inter alia, by health policymakers, professional associations, hospital managers and medical teams to ensure children receive the best possible healthcare. Whilst the best interests principle does not provide a conclusive solution to all ethical dilemmas in paediatric healthcare (as illustrated by the case studies), it provides children, medical teams, parents and families, and clinical ethicists with an indispensable framework for health care centred on the rights of the child. What is Known: • The best interests principle is one of the most widely discussed principles of medical ethics and human rights and one of the four general principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. What is New: • The present review discusses possible fields of application and potential difficulties of the best interests principle with regard to paediatric healthcare. • Based on this, it illustrates the implications of the best interests principle for paediatric healthcare through four case studies, which look at ethical dilemmas in paediatric gynaecology, end-of-life care, HIV care and genetic testing.

Conscience and Vaccines: Lessons from Babylon 5 and COVID-19

Babylon 5, like other great sci-fi franchises, touched on important ethical questions. Two ethical conundrums relating to the series' main characters included providing life-saving treatment to a child against their parents' wishes and potential involvement with a highly beneficial but morally dubious medication. I use these cases to discuss some aspects of the COVID-19 vaccines' development and roll-out, demonstrating that people (be it patients or clinicians) might object to some vaccines due to reasonable ethics and safety-based concerns rather than due to an anti-vaxxer mind-set. I highlight that it would be disingenuous to lump these two groups of objections together for not all objections to specific vaccines are objections to vaccination in general. Rather, governments and pharmaceutical companies should seriously engage with the concerns of reasonable objectors to provide citizens with the appropriate products and ensure large vaccination uptake - in the case of COVID-19 this should include giving patients the choice of the product they will be inoculated with.

Should parents be asked to consent for life-saving paediatric interventions?

Informed consent, when given by proxy, has limitations: chiefly, it must be made in the interest of the patient. Here we critique the standard approach to parental consent, as present in Canada and the UK. Parents are often asked for consent, but are not given the authority to refuse medically beneficial treatment in many situations. This prompts the question of whether it is possible for someone to consent if they cannot refuse. We present two alternative and philosophically more consistent frameworks for paediatric proxy consent. The first allows meaningful consent (parents may say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to treatment), provided that parents are medically informed/competent and intend the health and well-being of their child. In the second solution, medical practitioners or the state consent for treatment, with parents only being consulted to help give insight to the child’s circumstances. While we contend that either of these two options is superior to the insincerity of the present paradigm, we suggest that the first solution is preferable.