More details have emerged about the child B leukaemia case with the publication of the All England Law Report on the Appeal Court decision.
At the time the view was widely held that the controversy might have been avoided if the responsible health authority had consulted the public.
The law report reveals, however, that the courts adopted a moral language widely at variance with that of the patient's doctor.
The courts were concerned to support a utilitarian decision procedure based on calculations of the greatest overall good ; the doctor was concerned with the best interests of a sick child.
The doctor-patient relationship may be damaged when public consideration transforms the issue in this way.
Also, the Appeal Court supported a decision which claimed to have « weighed » opposing evaluations, but it excused the health authority from describing how that weighing took place.
One of the main criticisms ofthe utilitarian approach, however, is that weighing of this type is extremely difficult to justify.
By its ruling the court has made legal challenge on the grounds of inadequate consultation virtually impossible to substantiate.
Mots-clés Pascal : Hémopathie maligne, Traitement, Enfant, Homme, Angleterre, Grande Bretagne, Royaume Uni, Europe, Etude cas, Leucémie, Relation médecin malade, Décision, Législation, Critère décision, Coût, Ethique
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Malignant hemopathy, Treatment, Child, Human, England, Great Britain, United Kingdom, Europe, Case study, Leukemia, Physician patient relation, Decision, Legislation, Decision criterion, Costs, Ethics
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 96-0125758
Code Inist : 002B31. Création : 199608.