Skip to main content

Regulating “Quack” Medicine and Decision-Making For Children Re-visited

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Professor Kellie’s report was largely consistent with the evidence of PMH. He rejected the position of Oshin’s parents concerning administering palliative care only and alternative therapies see CAHS v Kiszko & Anor [2016] FCWA 34, [18]–[22].

  2. 2.

    Re J (A Minor) (wardship: medical treatment) [1991] Fam 33, 46 (Lord Donaldson), cited in The NHS Trust v A (A Child) Ors [2007] EWCH 1696 (Fam), recently applied in Re JM (A Child) [2015] EWCH 2832 (Fam).

  3. 3.

    The NHS Trust v A (A Child) & Ors [2007] EWHC 1696 (Fam); Re JM (A Child) [2015] EWHC 2832 (Fam); Re Norma [1992] NZFLR 445.

  4. 4.

    Re Norma [1992] NZFLR 445, 451 cited by Thackray CJ at [57].

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernadette Richards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richards, B., Okninski, M.E. Regulating “Quack” Medicine and Decision-Making For Children Re-visited. Bioethical Inquiry 13, 467–471 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-016-9746-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Innovative treatment
  • Consent
  • Vulnerable patients
  • Best interests
  • Quality of life