Children’s surgeons are rarely described as “champions” of children’s rights. That is not to say we are oblivious or indifferent to them. With some honourable exceptions, surgeons tend not to perform the vital task of ensuring that rights are kept in the forefront of the public conscience. In contrast to paediatricians, who are not infrequently labelled “champions”, our involvement is usually limited to the daily consequences of rights.

There are many fundamental obligations incorporated in surgical practice that could be said to flow from children’s rights. However, in practice, the reverse occurs. What came first was a genuine concern to address the panoply of issues around hospitalisation and treatment, and to deliver the optimal outcome for the child and their family. Many would see the development of the subspecialty of paediatric surgery as a manifestation of this. Realisation of the need for, among other things, an appropriate environment, symptom control, and a coherent consent process has coincided with recognition of the obligations we have towards paediatric patients.

The advent of the patient and public involvement pillar of clinical governance is articulated as “Children’s Voices”.¹ This may be seen as the further evolution of the rights of children, or a cynical ploy for votes, depending on your views.

In any event, this progress towards optimising the outcome for the child has all been the result of clinicians striving for improvement.

Whether it will fit neatly into the rights based vocabulary remains to be seen. To what extent does this progress in surgical practice correspond to any recognisable system of rights, and are these moral, or ethical, or legal rights?

Although the United Nations Convention on Children’s Rights (1989) cannot be directly applied in UK courts, we are under an obligation to honour it. As a codified objective …