Aims: To investigate professional and public attitudes to the intervention of the law when parents and doctors disagree about the medical treatment of children.
Methods: A cross-sectional survey of academic staff at the University of Otago. Random samples of academic medical practitioners and non-Health Sciences academic staff completed written questionnaires, including open and closed questions. Questions focussed on the Liam Williams-Holloway (W-H) and Tovia Laufau (TL) cases.
Results: The response rate was 107/164 (65%) of eligible staff. Support for doctors seeking treatment orders was strong (77% in the W-H case, and in the TL case, 70% believed an order should have been sought). Women were less likely than men to support a treatment order, significantly in the W-H case. There were no significant differences between medical and non-medical respondents. Court processes were viewed as confrontational and a last resort only after mediation failed. Scientific evidence was rated as the most important consideration in treatment decisions, followed by likely outcome, establishment of trust between parents and doctors, and the age of the child.
Conclusions: Among this highly educated group there was strong support for seeking treatment orders in the child's best interests. But various mediation options were preferred and should be explored further. More evidence is needed on the success of treatment orders and on the attitudes of a more representative sample of the population.