A threshold of significant harm (f)or a viable alternative therapeutic option?

This article critically examines the legal arguments presented on behalf of Charlie Gard's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, based on a threshold test of significant harm for intervention into the decisions made jointly by holders of parental responsibility. It argues that the legal basis of the argument, from the case of Ashya King, was tenuous. It sought to introduce different categories of cases concerning children's medical treatment when, despite the inevitable factual distinctions between individual cases, the duty of the judge in all cases to determine the best interests of the child is firmly established by the case law. It argues that the focus should not have been on a threshold for intervention but on whether his parents had established that the therapy they wanted was a viable alternative therapeutic option. In the April hearing, Charlie's parents relied on the offer of treatment from a US doctor; by July they had an independent panel of international experts supporting their case although by this time the medical evidence was that it was too late for Charlie. One of Charlie's legacies for future disputes may be that his case highlighted the need for evidence as to whether the treatment parents want for their child is a viable alternative therapeutic option before a court can determine which therapeutic option is in the best interests of the child.

Medicine vs. prayer: the case of Kara Neumann.

Religious beliefs and the use of complementary and alternative medicine can help or hinder health care and the well being of children, who are often unable to make informed decisions for themselves, but instead, depend on their parents or caregivers to make health care decisions for them. Tragically, this can sometimes result in prolonged suffering and death when parents or caregivers refuse treatment due to their own personal beliefs. This two-part article explores the case of Kara Neumann, an 11-year-old girl who died after her parents denied her medical care in lieu of prayer to cure her "spiritual attack," and the role pediatric nurses can play in educating patients and their families.

Child welfare versus parental autonomy: medical ethics, the law, and faith-based healing.

Over the past three decades more than 200 children have died in the U.S. of treatable illnesses as a result of their parents relying on spiritual healing rather than conventional medical treatment. Thirty-nine states have laws that protect parents from criminal prosecution when their children die as a result of not receiving medical care. As physicians and citizens, we must choose between protecting the welfare of children and maintaining respect for the rights of parents to practice the religion of their choice and to make important decisions for their children. In order to make and defend such choices, it is essential that we as health care professionals understand the history and background of such practices and the legal aspects of previous cases, as well as formulate an ethical construct by which to begin a dialogue with the religious communities and others who share similar beliefs about spiritual healing. In this paper, we provide a framework for these requirements.