Clarifying the best interests standard: the elaborative and enumerative strategies in public policy-making

Abstract

One recurring criticism of the best interests standard concerns its vagueness, and thus the inadequate guidance it offers to care providers. The lack of an agreed definition of 'best interests', together with the fact that several suggested considerations adopted in legislation or professional guidelines for doctors do not obviously apply across different groups of persons, result in decisions being made in murky waters. In response, bioethicists have attempted to specify the best interests standard, to reduce the indeterminacy surrounding medical decisions. In this paper, we discuss the bioethicists' response in relation to the state's possible role in clarifying the best interests standard. We identify and characterise two clarificatory strategies employed by bioethicists -elaborative and enumerative-and argue that the state should adopt the latter. Beyond the practical difficulties of the former strategy, a state adoption of it would inevitably be prejudicial in a pluralistic society. Given the gravity of best interests decisions, and the delicate task of respecting citizens with different understandings of best interests, only the enumerative strategy is viable. We argue that this does not commit the state to silence in providing guidance to and supporting healthcare providers, nor does it facilitate the abuse of the vulnerable. Finally, we address two methodological worries about adopting this approach at the state level. The adoption of the enumerative strategy is not defeatist in attitude, nor does it eventually collapse into (a form of) the elaborative strategy.

Forgoing life-sustaining treatment – a comparative analysis of regulations in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and England

“…Indeed, for patients who lack an AD or LPA, best interests provide the test as to whether treatment – including LST – should be provided. The Act enumerates, rather than elaborates, the factors to be balanced in a best interests decision [ 49 ]. The law in this area had evolved considerably since Bland , with the courts increasingly emphasising the holistic nature of the assessment, i.e.…”

Resolving Disagreements about the Care of Critically Ill Children: Evaluating Existing Processes and Setting the Research Agenda

“…The Children Act only enumerates some of the factors to be considered, 181 with the judges enjoying a great deal of discretion in the interpretation of a child's best interests. 182 The factors and the weight accorded to themthat inform best-interests decisions appear to vary between cases.…”

Clinic, courtroom or (specialist) committee: in the best interests of the critically Ill child?

“…The rule initially appears clear: the welfare or best interests of the child is the paramount concern. However, the rule is also opaque: the factors guiding such a determination are only enumerated, as opposed to elaborated, with decisions taken on a case-by-case basis 26. The judges enjoy considerable discretion,27 and apparently similar cases have resulted in different outcomes 11.…”

“…An ethics service, tasked with offering ethical advice, can therefore go beyond mere enumeration of the salient features of a particular referral, into elaboration of how the child’s best interests should be understood and effectuated 26. Philosophical accounts of best interests or welfare vary in their foci, looking to what people want (desire accounts), like (hedonistic accounts) or need (objective accounts) 69.…”