Death and Best Interests: A Response to Legal Challenges
Author Information
Author(s): Paul Baines
Primary Institution: Keele University
Hypothesis
Without a clear objective notion of best interests, the courts cannot fulfill their stated aim of using an objective test of best interests.
Conclusion
The legal conception of best interests falls short of objectivity and cannot be sustained without a clearer understanding of interests.
Supporting Evidence
- The paper argues that there is no objective best interest standard in legal or medical contexts.
- Judges' decisions may lack objectivity due to personal biases.
- The study emphasizes the need for a broader examination of best interests beyond legal frameworks.
Takeaway
This study argues that there is no clear way to determine what is best for children in critical situations, making it hard for courts to make objective decisions.
Methodology
The paper provides a critical analysis of the legal notion of best interests, comparing legal and philosophical perspectives.
Potential Biases
Judges may bring their own values and experiences, leading to a narrower conception of best interests.
Limitations
The study does not provide a clear framework for assessing best interests and highlights the subjective nature of interests.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website