Numerous academics have commented on the issues raised by the case. Bernadette Richards wrote that it stretched the bounds of parental authority by removing "external review of invasive treatment". Melinda Jones has compared the interventions in this and other cases to female genital mutilation. Fiona Kelly and Malcolm Smith have written that the evidence put to the Court was incomplete, and its reasoning lacked rigor. Morgan Carpenter has written that the case demonstrated a "failed narrative of continuous" clinical "technical improvement".
