An analysis of charlie's law and alfie's law

Abstract

The Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans cases were high-profile cases involving disagreements between the parents of young infants and medical practitioners, which have given impetus to pre-existing calls for law reform that have been rebranded as 'Charlie's Law' and 'Alfie's Law'. I argue against the proposal to replace the best interest test, which is currently determinative in such contentious cases, with a significant harm test, as it would render UK law divergent from international law. I also employ critical theory to rebut the notion that parents are the best decision makers and refute criticisms of clinicians (who reflexively acknowledged the limits of medicine). I utilise theories of distributive justice to demonstrate that legal reform may exacerbate unfairness, and case law to show that it may be unworkable. Nonetheless, I apply critical and Foucauldian theory to critique the lack of patient and public empowerment within the NHS and I endorse the proposal to ensure that mediation is offered in contentious cases, as this may empower patients and their carers. I also aver that the best interests test should be informed by clearer criteria regarding the allocation of finite resources, which the public should influence via the democratisation of the NHS.