Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

In 2017, the court case over medical treatment of UK infant, Charlie Gard, reached global attention. In this article, I will analyze one of the more distinctive elements of the case. The UK courts concluded that treatment of Charlie Gard was not in his best interests and that it would be permissible to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. However, in addition, the court ruled that Charlie should not be transferred overseas for the treatment that his parents sought, even though specialists in Italy and the US were willing to provide that treatment. Is it ethical to prevent parents from pursuing life-prolonging treatment overseas for their children? If so, when is it ethical to do this? I will outline arguments in defense of obstructing transfer in some situations. I will argue, however, that this is only justified if there is good reason to think that the proposed treatment would cause harm.

Original publication

DOI

10.1542/peds.2020-0818k

Type

Journal article

Journal

Pediatrics

Publication Date

08/2020

Volume

146

Pages

S54 - S59

Addresses

Faculty of Philosophy, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom; and Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia dominic.wilkinson@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.