...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of medical ethics >Why Charlie Gard's parents should have been the decision-makers about their son's best interests
【24h】

Why Charlie Gard's parents should have been the decision-makers about their son's best interests

机译：为什么查理加德的父母应该是关于他们儿子最大利益的决策者

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This paper argues that Charlie Gard's parents should have been the decision-makers about their son's best interests and that determination of Charlie's best interests depended on a moral decision about which horn of a profound moral dilemma to choose. Charlie's parents chose one horn of that moral dilemma and the courts, like Charlie Gard's doctors, chose the other horn. Contrary to the first UK court's assertion, supported by all the higher courts that considered it, that its judgement was 'objective', this paper argues that the judgement was not and could not be 'objective' in the sense of objectively correct but was instead a value judgement based on the judge's choice of one horn of the moral dilemma. While that horn was morally justified so too was the horn chosen by the parents. The court could and should have avoided depriving the parents of their normal moral and legal right and responsibility to decide on their child's best interests. Instead, this paper argues that the court should have acknowledged the lawfulness of both horns of the moral dilemma and added to its judgement that Charlie Gard's doctors were not legally obliged to provide treatment that they believed to be against their patient's best interests the additional judgement that Charlie's parents could lawfully transfer his care to other doctors prepared to offer the infant a trial of the experimental treatment requested by his parents.
机译：本文认为，查理加德的父母应该是关于他们儿子最大利益的决策者，并确定查理的最佳利益的决定取决于道德决定哪个董事会选择哪种道德困境。查理的父母选择了一个道德困境和法院的角，就像查理加尔的医生一样，选择了另一个角。与第一个英国法院的断言相反，由所有普遍认为它的审判是“客观”的所有高等法院的支持，这篇论文认为判决并不是在客观正确的意义上没有“客观”，但是基于法官选择道德困境的一个角的价值判断。虽然父母所选择的号角是道德上的那个号角。法院可以又应该避免剥夺父母的正常道德和法律权利和责任，以决定孩子的最佳利益。相反，本文认为，法院应该承认道德困境两大号角的合法性，并补充说，审判，即查理加德的医生没有法律义务提供他们认为反对他们患者最佳利益的待遇额外判决查理的父母可以合法地将他的照顾转移到准备提供婴儿的其他医生，以便为父母要求提供父母所要求的实验待遇。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号