AMBIENTUM BIOETHICA BIOLOGIA CHEMIA DIGITALIA DRAMATICA EDUCATIO ARTIS GYMNAST. ENGINEERING EPHEMERIDES EUROPAEA GEOGRAPHIA GEOLOGIA HISTORIA HISTORIA ARTIUM INFORMATICA IURISPRUDENTIA MATHEMATICA MUSICA NEGOTIA OECONOMICA PHILOLOGIA PHILOSOPHIA PHYSICA POLITICA PSYCHOLOGIA-PAEDAGOGIA SOCIOLOGIA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA LATIN THEOLOGIA GR.-CATH. VARAD THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXA THEOLOGIA REF. TRANSYLVAN
Rezumat articol ediţie STUDIA UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ-BOLYAI
În partea de jos este prezentat rezumatul articolului selectat. Pentru revenire la cuprinsul ediţiei din care face parte acest articol, se accesează linkul din titlu. Pentru vizualizarea tuturor articolelor din arhivă la care este autor/coautor unul din autorii de mai jos, se accesează linkul din numele autorului.
Autori: GILES BIRCHLEY.
DOI: 10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.14
Published Online: 2021-06-30
Published Print: 2021-06-30
pp.36
FULL PDF
ABSTRACT: Parallel Session I, Room 1 The ‘best interests’ standard is a key part of international law and bioethics, governing the medical treatment of children and adults who lack decision-making capacity. While the concept is used in various circumstances, ‘best interests’ has a long association with medical decision-making, appearing in English language medical journals from at least the early-19th century. Despite its history, the concept of ‘best interests’ has been fiercely criticised within bioethics and law. Critics argue that ‘best interests’ is vague and lacks specificity, and because of this, is an unchallengeable repository of medical power, and an affront to patient autonomy or parental rights. These critiques have fuelled recent calls to replace or radically reform the ‘best interests’ standard from international bodies (the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), and national campaign groups (the Charlie Gard Foundation in the United Kingdom). This paper, undertaken as part the BABEL Wellcome Trust Collaborative Award, presents a systematic review of fifty-three theoretically rich analyses of best interests from the 1970s to the present. The discussions consider best interests primarily in clinical situations, such as withdrawal of treatment, dementia, organ donation and circumcision. They reveal a range of theories that underlie best interests including objectivism, paternalism, patient rights, pragmatism and utilitarianism. We discuss what this multiplicity of theoretical bases can reveal about the coherence of current critiques as well as the fundamental structure, and prospects of survival, of the ‘best interests’ standard.
