The Best Interest Standard: Keep or Abandon?

In the just-published Summer 2011 edition of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, Douglas Diekema wrote "Revisiting the Best Interest Standard: Uses and Misuses."  I wrote a response titled "The Best Interest Standard: Both Guide and Limit to Medical Decision Making on Behalf of Incapacitated Patients."  I have copied both abstracts below.

Diekema:  The best interest standard is the threshold most frequently employed by physicians and ethics consultants in challenging a parent’s refusal to provide consent for a child’s medical care. In this article, I will argue that the best interest standard has evolved to serve two different functions, and that these functions differ sufficiently that they require separate standards. While the best interest standard is appropriate for choosing among alternative treatment options for children, making recommendations to parents, and making decisions on behalf of a child when the legal decision makers are either unable to make a decision or are in dispute, a different standard is required for deciding when to seek state interference with parental decision-making authority. I will suggest that the harm principle provides a more appropriate threshold for determining when to seek state intervention than the best interest standard.

Pope:  In this issue of JCE, Douglas Diekema argues that the best interest standard (BIS) has been misemployed to serve two materially different functions. On the one hand, clinicians and parents use the BIS to recommend and to make treatment decisions on behalf of children. On the other hand, clinicians and state authorities use the BIS to determine when the government should interfere with parental decision-making authority. Diekema concedes that the BIS is appropriately used to “guide” parents in making medical treatment decisions for their children. But he argues that the BIS is inappropriately used as a “limiting” standard to determine when to override those decisions. Specifically, Diekema contends that the BIS “does not represent the best means for determining when one must turn to the state to limit parental action.” He argues that this limiting function should be served by the harm principle instead of by the BIS.

I contend that we should not reassign the BIS’s limiting function to the harm principle. In this article I make two arguments to support my position. First, the BIS has effectively served, and can serve, both guiding and limiting functions. Second, the harm principle would be an inadequate substitute. It cannot serve the limiting function as well as the more robust BIS.