IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v33y2025i3p12..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Best interests decision-making in the Chinese adult guardianship regime through a P-centric lens

Author

Listed:
  • Daisy Cheung

Abstract

This article explores how best interests decisions are made on behalf of adults with impaired capacity in China through the lens of P-centricity, or the extent to which P is kept at the centre of the decision-making process. A two-part review, comprising a textual analysis of relevant legislative provisions and a cross-sectional review of 550 recent Chinese judgments on Article 35 of the Civil Code, is conducted. While an intention to move towards P-centricity was found at the legislative level, it is argued that the ideals of P-centricity have not been implemented on the ground by the courts, as demonstrated by the lack of P’s participation and P’s perspective in the vast majority of the cases, as well as the lack of a systematic, consistent approach either to how judges approached best interests decision-making generally, or when and how they ascertained P’s wishes in this process. Given the benefits of placing P at the centre of the decision-making process, recommendations relating to the development of judicial guidance and the training of judges are put forward.

Suggested Citation

  • Daisy Cheung, 2025. "Best interests decision-making in the Chinese adult guardianship regime through a P-centric lens," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 1-12..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:3:p:12.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf020
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:3:p:12.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.