Where parents seek treatment for their young child that healthcare professionals cannot agree to, the High Court can determine what is in the child’s best interests. Some activists and academics seek change to impose threshold criteria that would bolster the decision-making rights of parents and reduce deference to clinicians and the courts. We defend the best interests standard against arguments that a higher threshold of ‘significant harm’ should apply. We do so from ethical, legal, and clinical perspectives. The matter is of significant moral and practical importance, especially in light of the divergence of academic opinion, the burgeoning number of cases coming before the courts and recent case law and statutory attempts to effect change. We begin by disputing ethical claims that a significant harm threshold is preferable to the best interests standard, and then we set out jurisprudential and practical arguments that demonstrate the imprudence of a significant harm threshold and defend the established yardstick of best interests.

中文翻译：

---

我们应该如何决定如何对待孩子：分歧时的伤害与最大利益

如果父母为年幼的孩子寻求医疗保健专业人员无法同意的治疗，高等法院可以确定什么最符合孩子的最大利益。一些活动人士和学者寻求改变，强加门槛标准，以增强父母的决策权，减少对临床医生和法院的尊重。我们捍卫最佳利益标准，反对应适用更高的“重大损害”门槛的论点。我们从伦理、法律和临床的角度这样做。这一问题具有重大的道德和实践重要性，特别是考虑到学术观点的分歧、法院审理的案件数量不断增加以及最近判例法和法定改革的尝试。我们首先对“重大损害阈值优于最佳利益标准”的伦理主张提出争议，然后提出法理学和实践论据，证明重大损害阈值的轻率，并捍卫既定的最佳利益标准。