The Charlie Gard case: British and American approaches to court resolution of disputes over medical decisions

Journal article

On June 8, 2017, the Supreme Court in the UK rejected a legal appeal in the high-profile case of Charlie Gard, a British infant with a severe genetic disorder whose parents had disagreed with medical professionals and were requesting treatment that the doctors believed was futile. The case is the latest in a series of UK legal cases where courts have authorized withdrawal of treatment against the wishes of parents. In such disputes, British judges have, with rare exception, sided with health professionals. In contrast, in North America when disputes have reached the court, the courts have invariably sided in favour of life-sustaining medical treatment requested by a loving family.
In the UK and US such disagreements are generally resolved in discussions between the family and the doctors with, if necessary, the assistance of a hospital ethics committee. If the conflict proves intractable, one of the parties might seek a court order in support of its position.

Authors: Paris, J; Ahluwalia, J; Cummings, B; Moreland, M; Wilkinson, D

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Springer Nature
• Journal: Journal of Perinatology
• Volume: 37
• Pages: 1268–1271
• Publication date: 2017-10-19
• Acceptance date: 2017-06-27
• DOI: 10.1038/jp.2017.138
• EISSN: 1476-5543
• ISSN: 0743-8346