Parent and medical team disagreements in the UK: universal lessons in the origins and resolution in conflict

Author:

Mackintosh KarenORCID,McConnell Paul

Abstract

AbstractIn recent decades, there has been an increase in life expectancy in children with life-limiting conditions. Ideally, parents and clinicians would work together to ensure the best care for these children. Several cases have appeared in the media in recent years where conflict has risen between parents and healthcare professionals acting in the ‘best interests’ of children, which have resulted in court action. However, the legislation itself promotes conflict. Similar laws exist across Europe based on Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.The aim of the Children’s Act 1989 in the UK was to place the ‘child’s welfare’ as the ‘paramount consideration’. It has prevented draconian care and supervision orders, which can only be made if the child is at risk of ‘significant harm’. This threshold does not apply to healthcare teams. Healthcare decisions are based on ‘best interests’, which are not explicitly defined. This sets the threshold for progression to court action much lower, and due to a lack of definitive definition of what ‘best interests’ are, this has unfortunately escalated conflict rather than resolve it.Healthcare institutions have been criticised for not utilising alternative approaches first, such as mediation. We propose an alternative approach based on collaboration, reasonableness and the threshold of significant harm, which we have explored in this review.Conflict management frameworks are a tool that can be used to recognise early signs of conflict and develop strategies to prevent escalation at ward level. They can be tailored to individual institutions and utilise content-oriented and empathetic communication strategies through designated clinicians. They should offer guidance on when to refer to the courts.Parental wishes should be assessed on whether they represent significant harm or not. If not, they cannot simply be wrong. Acknowledgement of the ‘reasonableness’ of parental requests can be a key factor which is diffusing conflict. Therefore, setting the threshold for state intervention at ‘significant harm’ rather than ‘best interests’ would help to reduce the number of these cases progressing to courts.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference28 articles.

1. Law Commission (1988). Review of child law: guardianship and custody; 172:2.1.

2. Re King (2014) EWHC 2964. Available at https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed132257#:~:text=Decision%20of%20Mr%20Justice%20Baker,the%20provision%20of%20medical%20treatment (Accessed 31/7/22)

3. GOSH v Yates and Gard (2017) EWHC 972. Available at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/gosh-v-yates-and-gard-20170411-1.pdf (Accessed 31/7/22)

4. Alder Hey v Evans (2018) EWHC 308. Available at https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/alder-hey-v-evans.pdf (Accessed 31/7/22)

5. Children Act 1989. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/1 Accessed 31/7/22)

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3