ABSTRACT
In this chapter the results of Chapters 3 and 4 are compared. The comparison identifies that in applying the best interests principle under current laws, judges do not address a range of relevant considerations. However, the alternative approaches applied by doctors, in which the child’s interests were not prioritised in the same manner, resulted in children being provided and denied treatment in order to meet the parents’ needs. There were instances in which this may have resulted in harm to the child. The comparison also demonstrates that the welfare, relational, and medical approaches each identify relevant issues but do not provide a comprehensive explanation of the situation. It is argued that the best interests principle should be retained because otherwise the child’s interests are not adequately considered. However, it is also necessary to address the broader context in which decisions are made.
