UK MEDICAL LAW Free Essay Example, 1000 words

UK Medical Law Courts Determine Best Interests The purpose of this study is to question why court decisions, as a result of using their inherent jurisdiction, is the final determination in the question of withholding or withdrawal of medical treatment in respect of children and neonates. To enable us to assess the validity of this position we have studied the judgement made in the case of LJ Wall, Wyatt v Portsmouth Hospital NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 1181 para 112, and undertaken further research, both in the legal and medical field. We have found that â€Å"best interest† determination by courts are in most cases the only resolution the only way to reach a solution between the often-found conflict between the practical and qualitative views of the physician and the more emotion responses from parents. UK Medical Law Courts Determine Best Interests Is it fair that decisions by the courts are the concluding answer in cases where they have inherent jurisdiction? In the case of children and neonates should it be the case that courts are the final valid judgements on â€Å"best interests? † Who is best placed to make the decision to withhold or withdraw from children or neonates? We will write a custom essay sample on UK MEDICAL LAW or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now In assessing these questions, and more importantly the answers, we have studied both sides of the argument. Most dictionaries have difficulty in defining the phrase ‘Inherent Jurisdiction’. When using the terms in a legal context, particularly regarding a courts decision. When that decision relates to children and neonates, it means that the courts have an essential power, which they are charged to use in the best interests of the person in question. This is an immensely difficult role to fill, especially when that decision is the choice of whether to withhold or withdraw treatment. With regard to the decision makers in the case of withholding/withdrawal of medical treatment from children and neonates, there are only three groups of people who can even contemplate being part of the process. 1) The physician – medical profession 2) The parent – to include in rare cases the patient themselves 3) The courts – if those in one and two cannot agree or have a serious dispute. In the case of the physicians, the process by which they would arrive at an opinion leading to an answer is, partly of necessity, a more detached and clinical approach than that of the parents. They come to their conclusions regarding the question of withdrawal of medical treatment based upon facts, experience, medical history and their own in-depth medical examinations and observations of the individual patient.