A growing number of bioethics papers endorse the harm threshold when judging whether to override parental decisions. Among other claims, these papers argue that the harm threshold is easily understood by lay and professional audiences and correctly conforms to societal expectations of parents in regard to their children. English law contains a harm threshold which mediates the use of the best interests test in cases where a child may be removed from her parents. Using Diekema9s seminal paper as an example, (...) this paper explores the proposed workings of the harm threshold. I use examples from the practical use of the harm threshold in English law to argue that the harm threshold is an inadequate answer to the indeterminacy of the best interests test. I detail two criticisms: First, the harm standard has evaluative overtones and judges are loath to employ it where parental behaviour is misguided but they wish to treat parents sympathetically. Thus, by focusing only on ‘substandard’ parenting, harm is problematic where the parental attempts to benefit their child are misguided or wrong, such as in disputes about withdrawal of medical treatment. Second, when harm is used in genuine dilemmas, court judgments offer different answers to similar cases. This level of indeterminacy suggests that, in practice, the operation of the harm threshold would be indistinguishable from best interests. Since indeterminacy appears to be the greatest problem in elucidating what is best, bioethicists should concentrate on discovering the values that inform best interests. (shrink)

This paper reviews the ethical literature on conflicts between health professionals and parents about medical decision-making for children. We present the results of a systematic review which addressed the question ‘when health professionals and parents disagree about the appropriate course of medical treatment for a child, under what circumstances is the health professional ethically justified in overriding the parents’ wishes?’ We identified nine different ethical frameworks that were put forward by their authors as applicable across various ages and clinical scenarios. (...) Each of these frameworks centred on a different key moral concept including harm, constrained parental autonomy, best interests, medically reasonable alternatives, responsible thinking and rationality. (shrink)

This work clarifies the role of the best interest standard (BIS) as ethical principle in the medical care of children. It relates the BIS to the ethical framework of medical practice. The BIS is shown to be a general principle in medical ethics, providing grounding to prima facie obligations. The foundational BIS of Kopelman and Buchanan and Brock are reviewed and shown to be in agreement with the BIS here defended. Critics describe the BIS as being too demanding, narrow, opaque, (...) not taking the family into account and not suitable as limiting principle. This work responds to these criticisms, showing that they do not stand up to scrutiny. They either do not apply to the BIS, only apply to misuses of the BIS or criticise a BIS that is not seriously defended in the literature. (shrink)

When shared decision making breaks down and parents and medical providers have developed entrenched and conflicting views, ethical frameworks are needed to find a way forward. This article reviews the evolution of thought about the best interest standard and then discusses the advantages of the harm principle (HP) and the zone of parental discretion (ZPD). Applying these frameworks to parental refusals in situations of complexity and uncertainty presents challenges that necessitate concrete substeps to analyze the big picture and identify key (...) questions. I outline and defend a new decision-making tool that includes three parts: identifying the nature of the disagreement, checklists for key elements of the HP and ZPD, and a “think list” of specific questions designed to enhance use of the HP and ZPD in clinical decision making. These tools together will assist those embroiled in complex disagreements to disentangle the issues to find a path to resolution. (shrink)

In the western healthcare, shared decision making has become the orthodox approach to making healthcare choices as a way of promoting patient autonomy. Despite the fact that the autonomy paradigm is poorly suited to paediatric decision making, such an approach is enshrined in English common law. When reaching moral decisions, for instance when it is unclear whether treatment or non-treatment will serve a child’s best interests, shared decision making is particularly questionable because agreement does not ensure moral validity. With reference (...) to current common law and focusing on intensive care practice, this paper investigates what claims shared decision making may have to legitimacy in a paediatric intensive care setting. Drawing on key texts, I suggest these identify advantages to parents and clinicians but not to the child who is the subject of the decision. Without evidence that shared decision making increases the quality of the decision that is being made, it appears that a focus on the shared nature of a decision does not cohere with the principle that the best interests of the child should remain paramount. In the face of significant pressures toward the displacement of the child’s interests in a shared decision, advantages of a shared decision to decisional quality require elucidation. Although a number of arguments of this nature may have potential, should no such advantages be demonstrable we have cause to revise our commitment to either shared decision making or the paramountcy of the child in these circumstances. (shrink)

Douglas Diekema has argued that it is not the best interest standard, but the harm principle that serves as the moral basis for ethicists, clinicians, and the courts to trigger state intervention to limit parental authority in the clinic. Diekema claims the harm principle is especially effective in justifying state intervention in cases of religiously motivated medical neglect in pediatrics involving Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists. I argue that Diekema has not articulated a harm principle that is capable of justifying (...) state intervention in these cases. Where disagreements over appropriate care are tethered to metaphysical disagreements, it is moral-metaphysical standards, rather than merely moral standards, that are needed to provide substantive guidance. I provide a discussion of Diekema’s harm principle to the broader end of highlighting an inconsistency between the theory and practice of secular bioethics when overriding religiously based medical decisions. In a secular state, ethicists, clinicians, and the courts are purportedly neutral with respect to moral-metaphysical positions, especially regarding those claims considered to be religious. However, the practice of overriding religiously based parental requests requires doffing the mantle of neutrality. In the search for a meaningful standard by which to override religiously based parental requests in pediatrics, bioethicists cannot avoid some minimal metaphysical commitments. To resolve this inconsistency, bioethicists must either begin permitting religiously based requests, even at the cost of children’s lives, or admit that at least some moral-metaphysical disputes can be rationally adjudicated. (shrink)

The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has refocused attention on the issue of mandatory vaccination. Some have suggested that vaccines ought to be mandatory, while others propose more moderate alternatives, such as incentives. This piece surveys a range of possible interventions, ranging from mandates through to education. All may have their place, depending on circumstances. However, it is worth clarifying the options available to policymakers, since there is sometimes confusion over whether a particular policy constitutes a mandate or not. Further, I (...) illustrate a different kind of alternative to mandatory vaccination. Rather than seeking less coercive alternatives to a mandate, we might instead employ an alternative mandate, which requires people to do something less than get vaccinated. For instance, we might merely require people to attend an appointment at a vaccine clinic. Whether this mandatory attendance policy is justified will depend on specific circumstances, but it represents another way to promote vaccination, without mandating it. In some cases, this may represent an appropriate balance between promoting public health goals and respecting individual liberty. (shrink)

Cage-Fighting, also known as Mixed Martial Arts, is a combat sport that allows participants to grapple, punch, kick, elbow and knee—a combination of elements from many martial arts. While it...

This article examines an argument which may negatively influence measles vaccination uptake. According to the argument, an individual child in a highly vaccinated society may be better off by being non-vaccinated; the child does not risk vaccine adverse effects and is protected against measles through herd immunity. Firstly, the conclusion of the argument is challenged by showing that herd immunity’s protection is unreliable and inferior to vaccination. Secondly, the logic of the argument is challenged by showing that the argument is (...) inherently self-defeating and therefore logically inconsistent. In practice the argument cannot be used to protect children against measles. Measles vaccination is undoubtedly best for children, even in highly vaccinated societies. Only if a medical contraindication to vaccination exists should vaccination be waived in favour of reliance on herd immunity. This places obligations on those who stand in care relationships with the child: parents, healthcare providers, and the state. (shrink)

Children do not belong to their parents. They are not property, although throughout much of history they were considered chattel. In the 21st century, it is generally agreed that children are indiv...

Background In the ethical and clinical literature, cases of parents who want treatment for their child to be withdrawn against the views of the medical team have not received much attention. Yet resolution of such conflicts demands much effort of both the medical team and parents. Objective To discuss who can best protect a child9s interests, which often becomes a central issue, putting considerable pressure on mutual trust and partnership. Methods We describe the case of a 3-year-old boy with acquired (...) brain damage due to autoimmune-mediated encephalitis whose parents wanted to stop treatment. By comparing this case with relevant literature, we systematically explored the pros and cons of sharing end-of-life decisions with parents in cases where treatment is considered futile by parents and not (yet) by physicians. Conclusions Sharing end-of-life decisions with parents is a more important duty for physicians than protecting parents from guilt or doubt. Moreover, a request from parents on behalf of their child to discontinue treatment is, and should be, hard to over-rule in cases with significant prognostic uncertainty and/or in cases with divergent opinions within the medical team. (shrink)

In Bester’s article (2018) challenging the use of the harm principle and advocating sole reliance on the use of a best interest standard (BIS) in pediatric decision-making, we believe that the auth...

Application of either the harm principle or the best interest standard to medical decision making conflicts with some types of pediatric research that pose elevated risk without the reasonable prob...

For trans youth, the experience of gender differs from expectations based on sex assigned at birth (Frohard-Dourlent, Dobson, Clark, Duoll, & Saewyc, 2016). To support gender health—the ability to...

Douglas Diekema influentially argues that interference with parental decisions is not in fact guided by the child’s best interests, but rather by a more permissive standard, which he calls the harm principle. This article first seeks to clarify this alternative position and defend it against certain existing criticisms, before offering a new criticism and alternative. This ‘harm principle’ has been criticized for (i) lack of adequate moral grounding, and (ii) being as indeterminate as the best interest standard that it seeks (...) to replace. I argue that these are not serious problems. I take Diekema’s negative point to be right—our actual standard for intervention is not literally the best interests of the child—but I disagree with his proposed replacement. First, Diekema’s proposed harm threshold should be more carefully distinguished from Mill’s harm principle. Second, there is no reason to assume that the standard for permissible intervention coincides with the threshold for harm (or serious harm). Thus, I propose that the best alternative to the best interests standard is not a harm principle, but rather a sufficiency threshold between adequate (or ‘good enough’) and inadequate (or ‘substandard’) parenting. (shrink)

Carson and Flood (2017) present an interesting argument regarding a duty to vaccinate as a social obligation. Their argument is based on Catholic social teaching, and particularly on the moral prec...

In pediatric health care, parents and clinicians sometimes have competing ideas of what should be done for a child. In this article, we explore the idea that notions of what should be done for a child partly depend on one's perception of one's role in the child's life and care. Although role‐based appeals are common in health care, role‐differentiated approaches to understanding parent‐clinician conflicts are underexplored in the pediatric bioethics literature. We argue that, while the parental role is recognized as (...) having social content or value, and sometimes legal force, it is not always recognized as having ethical content or value, as the clinician's role is. We draw together key insights from the normative and empirical literature on parental roles to show how a role‐based lens might inform clinicians’ and clinical ethicists’ approach to cases in which parents and clinicians disagree. (shrink)

Non-beneficial paediatric research is vital to improving paediatric healthcare. Nevertheless, it is also ethically controversial. By definition, subjects of such studies are unable to give consent and they are exposed to risks only for the benefit of others, without obtaining any clinical benefits which could compensate those risks. This raises ethical concern that children participating in non-beneficial research are treated instrumentally; that they are reduced to mere instruments for the benefit of science and society. But this would make the research (...) incompatible with the widely endorsed principle of the primacy of the human subject, which stipulates that the interests of the participating individual should prevail over the interests of science and society. This paper deals with this conflict. It analyses solutions to this problem developed in the literature, and shows that they are unsuccessful. Finally, it offers a new idea of how to reconcile the conduct of non-beneficial paediatric research with the PP. The paper argues for a new formula of the PP, and shows that it implies a specific non-comparative definition of the minimal risk threshold. (shrink)

Lower respiratory tract infections are a leading cause of paediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide. Children in low-income countries are disproportionately affected. This is in large part due to limitations in healthcare resources and medical technologies. Mechanical ventilation can be a life-saving therapy for many children with acute respiratory failure. The scarcity of functioning ventilators in low-income countries results in countless preventable deaths. Some hospitals have attempted to adapt to this scarcity by using hand-bag ventilation, as either a bridge to a (...) mechanical ventilator, or until clinical improvement occurs rendering mechanical ventilation no longer necessary. In instances of hand-bag ventilation, an endotracheal tube is first placed. Family members are then asked to play the role of a ventilator, manually compressing a bag repeatedly to inflate the child’s lungs. This approach is fraught with numerous ethical challenges. A careful examination of the data and a nuanced approach to the ethical considerations are imperative. Ethical arguments in support of and in opposition to allowing parental hand-bag ventilation are explored, including the best interests of the child, the child’s right to an open future, beneficence and parental protection, legitimising substandard care, and finally, contextual concerns. An algorithmic, potentially ethically permissible approach to parental participation in manual ventilation is proposed. (shrink)

Bioethics has dedicated itself to exploring and defending both reasons for and against certain aspects of clinical care, biomedical research and health policy, including what decisions must be made, who should make them, and how they should be made. In pediatrics, it’s widely acknowledged that parents’ reasons may matter pragmatically; attending to parents’ reasons is important if we want to work with families. Yet the conventional view in pediatric ethics is that parents’ reasons are irrelevant to whether a decision is (...) permissible or impermissible according to accepted ethical standards. In this paper, we explore whether parents’ reasons matter ethically and, if so, in what way and for whom. First, we clarify what we mean by ‘reasons.’ Second, we provide an overview of how reasons are typically treated in medical decision-making and pediatric ethics. Third, we analyze a hypothetical pediatric case to illustrate how changing reasons can transform ethical analyses, including by contributing to where and how clinicians and ethicists draw the boundaries intrinsic to common pediatric ethical frameworks. We push back against the conventional view and argue that parents’ reasons matter ethically in several ways. We call for further research on the role of parents’ reasons in clinical ethics deliberation. (shrink)

BackgroundIn the ruling inY[2018], the UK Supreme Court has confirmed that there is no general requirement for the courts in England and Wales to authorise the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness. The perceived requirement, which originated in a court ruling in 1993, encompassed those in the vegetative state and those in the minimally conscious state. The ruling inYconfirms that the court may still be approached to decide difficult or contested cases, but (...) there is otherwise no routine requirement that the judges be approached.Main bodyThere is much to welcome in this ruling, particularly as it means that these decisions for these patients are no longer (unusually) singled out for a judicial decision, with all the financial and emotional costs that court proceedings can entail. However, there is also a risk that the ruling might have unwelcome consequences. First, there is the possibility that patients might die too soon, particularly if doctors should now adopt the courts’ previous reasoning, which has suggested that patients in the vegetative state lack interests, so treatment may – perhaps must – be withdrawn. Secondly, there is the converse possibility that patients might live too long, since empirical research suggests that – whether intentionally or not – patients’ families, clinicians, and the health system appear to promote treatment-by-default.ConclusionRather than adopt general positions, which may be contestable and potentially risky, this article argues, on a pluralistic basis, that the individual patient should be the focus of any decision made in his or her ‘best interests’. The existing legal framework in England and Wales, which is provided by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, already points in this direction, although more efforts may be needed to ensure that those involved in making these decisions are suitably educated and supported. Fortunately, new guidance from the British Medical Association could help clinicians and families to make decisions in the future, which are appropriate for the incapacitated individual patient in question. (shrink)

According to various accounts, intervention in pediatric decisions is justified either by the best interests standard or by the harm principle. While these principles have various nuances that distinguish them from each other, they are similar in the sense that both focus primarily on the features of parental decisions that justify intervention, rather than on the competency or authority of the parties that intervene. Accounts of these principles effectively suggest that intervention in pediatric decision making is warranted for both physicians (...) and the state under precisely the same circumstances. This essay argues that there are substantial differences in the competencies and authorities of physicians and the state, and that the principles that guide their interventions should also be conceived differently. While both the best interests standard and the harm principle effectively incorporate important aspects of physicians’ ethical obligations, neither adequately reflects the state’s ethical obligations. In contrast to physicians, the state has major obligations of distributive justice and neutrality that should form an integral part of any proposed ethical principles guiding state intervention in pediatric decision making. The differences are illustrated by examining recent cases involving parental refusal of chemotherapy in aboriginal Canadian communities and parental refusal of blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses. (shrink)

The justification for restrictive state intervention (RSI) such as criminal punishment or state reversal of parental decisions is called a limiting, or intervention (Buchanan and Brock 1989, 10), p...

Children dependent on life-prolonging medical technology are often subject to a constant background risk of sudden death or catastrophic complications. Such children can be cared for in hospital, in an intensive care environment with highly trained nurses and doctors able to deliver specialised, life-saving care immediately. However, remaining in hospital, when life expectancy is limited, can considered to be a harm in of itself. Discharge home offers the possibility for an improved quality of life for the child and their family (...) but comes with significant medical risks.When making decisions for children, two ethical models predominate, the promotion of the child’s best interests or the avoidance of harm. However, in some circumstances, particularly for children with life-limiting and/or life-threatening illness, all options may be associated with risk. There are no good options, only potentially harmful choices.In this paper, we explore decisions made by one family in such circumstances. We describe a model adopted from risk management programmes beyond medicine, which offers a potential framework for identifying risks to the child that are morally permissible. Some risks and harms to a child, not ordinarily permitted, may be acceptable when undertaken in the pursuit of a specified desired good, so long as they are as low as reasonably practicable. (shrink)

Adolescent sexuality is one of the most important reproductive health issues that confronts healthcare professionals with moral dilemmas and legal issues. In this study, we aim to justify the at-risk adolescents’ regulations on access to key reproductive health services (KRHSs) based on principles of Islamic biomedical ethics and jurisprudence. Despite the illegitimacy and prohibition of sexuality for both girls and boys in Islamic communities, in this study, using 5 principles or universal rules of purpose; certainty, no-harm; necessity; and custom, we (...) argue that first, applying these principles in the context of the no-harm principle can provide the best interests of at-risk adolescents; second, it is permissible to provide KRHSs to these adolescents with their own assent, as long as necessary, only with the intention of preventing or reducing harm. In this framework, while preventing harm, it tries to provide the best interests of at-risk adolescent. Thus, the principle of no-harm requires that the government, by designating the responsibility to healthcare professionals, protects at-risk adolescents from harm, and obliges these professionals to choose and implement the option that best suits adolescents’ interests. (shrink)

The provision of intensive care enables the lives of neonates, infants and children to be sustained or extended in circumstances previously regarded as impossible. However, as well as benefits, such care may confer burdens that resultingly frame continuation of certain interventions as futile, conferring more harm than or any, benefit. Subsequently, clinicians and families in the paediatric intensive care unit are often faced with decisions to withdraw, withhold or limit intensive care in order to act in the best interests of (...) the child. An integral consideration in respect of these decisions is that futility is a concept that has to be contextualised for all those involved. Recent high-profile legal cases highlight the professional, clinical, legal and social conflicts that can arise when parents and clinicians have different interpretations of futility. In acknowledging the complexity of these conflicts for clinicians, this paper aims to support a better understanding of futility as an integral concept in such difficult and emotive decisions within professional practice. We utilise the concept of futility to frame how these decisions to withdraw or withhold certain invasive life-prolonging interventions are ethically and legally justifiable, even when they disagree or conflict with parental views. To support clinicians in understanding these decisions, we in part use the familiar bioethical framework of Principlism developed by Beauchamp and Childress. We suggest that understanding legal and ethical analysis of futility ultimately will help clinicians in approaching and reflecting on such decision-making. (shrink)

Why must critical congenital heart disease (CCHD) screening be legislated? This was my first reaction to Hom and colleagues' (2016) analysis. As the authors explain, pulse oximetry is painless and...

Abstract:The “Ashley treatment” has provoked much debate and remains ethically controversial. Given that more children are being referred for such treatment, there remains a need to provide advice to clinicians and ethics committees regarding how to respond to such requests. This article contends that there is one particularly important gap in the existing literature about growth attenuation therapy (GAT) (one aspect of the Ashley treatment): the views of parents of children with profound cognitive impairment (PCI) remain significantly underrepresented. The article (...) attempts to redress this balance by analyzing published accounts both from parents of children who have received GAT and from parents who oppose treatment. Using these accounts, important points are illuminated regarding how parents characterize benefits and harms, and their responsibilities as surrogate decisionmakers. This analysis could contribute to decisionmaking about future requests for GAT and might also have wider relevance to healthcare decisionmaking for children with PCI. (shrink)

Background: Families and clinicians must often weigh competing priorities when making medical decisions for a pediatric patient at the end of life. Few empirical data exist regarding the importance that clinicians place on varying priorities and whether clinical practice conforms to decision-making standards discussed in the literature. Methods: We administered a discrete choice experiment to understand the relative importance of nine pediatric end-of-life decision-making priorities using responses from 364 nurses and physicians from three intensive care units (ICUs) (pediatric ICU, pediatric (...) cardiothoracic ICU, neonatal ICU) in a large children's hospital, with a 54% response rate. We used latent class analysis to characterize subgroups of health professionals based on their patterns of importance for the nine attributes and examined differences in class membership using multinomial logistic regression. Results: Eighty-two percent of respondents were nurses, consistent with the proportion of nurse and physician staff in the units. Latent class analysis separated our sample of health professionals into five distinct classes. All five groups rated the child's comfort and the best interests as most important but differed regarding how they valued other considerations: Group 1 rated highly consideration of the entire family and medical judgment; Group 2, the entire family's interests, parents’ preferences, and religious beliefs; Group 3, maintaining harmony between parents and medical team; Group 4, responsible use of medical resources; and Group 5, medical evidence and prolonging the child's life. Those with more years of experience were less likely to fall in Group 5 (medical evidence/life-prolonging). Profession was not associated with group membership. Conclusions: Nurses and physicians who care for dying children prioritize foremost the child's best interests and comfort but then possess varying secondary priorities about what is most important when making medical decisions. Pediatric palliative care and ethics consultative services should be aware of and prepared to address these differing concerns. (shrink)

BackgroundThe complexity of decision-making in the paediatric context is well recognised. In the majority of cases, parents and healthcare professionals work together to decide which treatments the paediatric patient should receive. On occasions, however, parental wishes conflict with what clinicians think is best for the paediatric patient. Where persistent disagreement between clinicians and parents exists, clinicians must ascertain if they have a moral, professional, and legal obligation to overrule the parents' decision and implement their preferred option.PurposeFew decision-making frameworks to assist (...) in addressing the ethical issues that arise in clinical decision-making relate specifically to the paediatric context. Diekema's Harm Threshold Framework and the Zone of Parental Discretion Framework assist in determining whether parental decisions should or should not be overridden. This paper examines the similarities and differences between these frameworks.MethodsThe frameworks are analysed i... (shrink)

In the last quarter of 2024 four articles on survival after death were published online ahead of print in the International Review of Psychiatry. Two of these included gratuitous attempts to discredit the work of a well-known survival critic. After correcting these misrepresentations, in this response Keith Augustine lays out how those who appeal to survival research to support their beliefs bungle their purportedly scientific assessments of the evidence concerning whether or not individual human minds survive death in a discarnate (...) state (without a normal physical body). The response also lays out why the still-common arguments that the late eminent thanatologist Robert Kastenbaum offered in favor of a discarnate afterlife are fallacious. It canvasses erroneous tropes about discovering white crows and the supposed impossibility of proving negatives, how scientific facts are established as highly probable, how psychical research is grounded on fallacious arguments from ignorance, and when all else fails, how survival researchers resort to psychologizing their critics rather than address their critics' arguments. Their collective failure to engage their critics' actual arguments raises the issue of whether survival proponents are able to adequately answer them—and if not, why not. Augustine submits that they are unable to answer their critics because the scientific evidence against their afterlife beliefs is incredibly strong. 1. Introduction -- 2. Gregory Shushan -- 3. Andreas Sommer -- 3.1 The Irrelevance of My Work to Sommer’s Thesis -- 3.2 How My Use is Comparable to What Robert Kastenbaum Intended -- 3.3 Sommer’s Characterization of The Myth of an Afterlife -- 3.4 The Context of What Kastenbaum was Trying to Do -- 3.5 Where Kastenbaum Fell on the Survival Question—and Why -- 3.5.1 Fallacious White Crows -- 3.5.2 Proof, Certainty, and Proving Negatives -- 3.5.3 Causal Ignorance is not Causal Evidence -- 3.5.4 Psychologizing Opponents -- 4. Conclusion: A Belief in Search of Evidence, or Evidence-Driven Belief? (shrink)