This commentary critically examines the role of the law in the conflict over the post-operative care of five-year-old Ashya King. It argues that misunderstanding, threats, and fear of the law contributed to the deteriorating relationship between his parents and the professionals caring for him. The commentary analyses the judgment, in wardship proceedings, of Baker J arguing that too much weight was placed upon the responsibilities of Ashya's parents and an insufficient account provided of his best interests or of the principled basis for preferring innovative and, as yet, unproven therapy only available, privately funded, abroad to conventional treatment for a child with a life-threatening condition.
Keywords: Best interests of child; Children's healthcare decision-making; Innovative treatment; Parental/professional conflict.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: firstname.lastname@example.org.