In Raqeeb v Barts NHS Foundation Trust, the latest of a number of cases concerning whether a child can travel abroad for treatment that doctors in the UK do not consider to be in their best interests, the High Court held that the hospital had acted unlawfully by failing to consider the child's rights under EU law when refusing to allow her to travel. Although this derogation could be justified on public policy grounds, as such treatment was, on the facts, in her best interests, no further interference with her rights was justified. In making this finding, the court recognised the ‘stress’ that such a case placed on the best interests test, lending weight to the argument for moving instead to a risk of significant harm threshold for judicial intervention in parental decisions, which better accounts for legitimate differences of value and strikes a better balance under Article 8 ECHR.

中文翻译：

---

重新评估Raqeeb诉Barts NHS Foundation Trust＆Anors案中的“最佳利益”

在Raqeeb诉Barts NHS基金会信托中，在有关儿童是否可以出国接受英国医生认为不符合其最大利益的治疗的最新案件中，高等法院裁定，该医院采取了不合法的行动，没有考虑到儿童的权利，欧盟法律拒绝她旅行时。尽管这种克减可以基于公共政策的理由来证明是正当的，但从事实出发，从她的最大利益出发，这样的对待是合理的，没有理由再干涉她的权利。法院在做出这一裁定时，意识到了这种情况对最佳利益标准的“压力”，从而强调了将论点转移到对父母决定进行司法干预时存在重大损害阈值的风险，