Lessons for health care rationing from the case of child B.
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 of the 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.
Price
D
D
Social Welfare Research Unit, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne.
D002648:Child; D003657:Decision Making; D028663:Ethical Theory; D005260:Female; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D033222:Judicial Role; D007938:Leukemia / Q000628:therapy*; D010344:Patient Advocacy; D016079:Refusal to Treat / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D040841:Resource Allocation; D012935:Social Justice; D012941:Social Responsibility; D013315:Stress, Psychological; D006113:United Kingdom; D026712:Value of Life; D028761:Withholding Treatment