Abstract/Summary

This article presents original empirical analysis of sixteen years of reported case law concerning medical treatment disputes and children. These disputes often arise due to disagreement between healthcare professionals and family members about what healthcare provision is in the best interests of the child. We provide statistical analysis of a database of reported judgments which we have compiled, drawing out key themes arising from the cases. While much of the existing literature focuses on individual or high-profile judgments in this arena, our analysis takes a step back and looks at the broader themes that can only be understood by looking at the reported cases through an empirical lens. This broader view provides several new insights and we highlight key findings, including that: most cases are resolved in line with the public body’s preferred outcome rather than the family; there is a relationship between the instigator of litigation and the outcome; and there is a relationship between the presence of religious factors and the outcome of the case. Overall, the article reinforces the need for further empirical analysis of how medical treatment disputes are resolved, specifically further understanding about the use of informal mechanisms of resolution such as mediation and how the other factors identified influence court judgments.