Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. (5 other versions)Principles of biomedical ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1989 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by James F. Childress.
    Over the course of its first seven editions, Principles of Biomedical Ethics has proved to be, globally, the most widely used, authored work in biomedical ethics. It is unique in being a book in bioethics used in numerous disciplines for purposes of instruction in bioethics. Its framework of moral principles is authoritative for many professional associations and biomedical institutions-for instruction in both clinical ethics and research ethics. It has been widely used in several disciplines for purposes of teaching in the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1940 citations  
  • Principles of Biomedical Ethics.Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress - 1995 - Hastings Center Report 25 (4):37.
    Book reviewed in this article: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. By Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2276 citations  
  • Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making.Allen E. Buchanan & Dan W. Brock - 1989 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Dan W. Brock.
    This book is the most comprehensive treatment available of one of the most urgent - and yet in some respects most neglected - problems in bioethics: decision-making for incompetents. Part I develops a general theory for making treatment and care decisions for patients who are not competent to decide for themselves. It provides an in-depth analysis of competence, articulates and defends a coherent set of principles to specify suitable surrogate decisionmakers and to guide their choices, examines the value of advance (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   259 citations  
  • On Liberty and Other Essays.John Stuart Mill (ed.) - 1991 - Oxford University Press.
    Collected here in a single volume for the first time, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, Considerations on Representative Government, and The Subjection of Women show Mill applying his liberal utilitarian philosophy to a range of issues that remain vital today - issues of the nature of ethics, the scope and limits of individual liberty, the merits of and costs of democratic government, and the place of women in society. In his Introduction John Gray describes these essays as applications of Mill's doctrine of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   152 citations  
  • The zone of parental discretion: An ethical tool for dealing with disagreement between parents and doctors about medical treatment for a child.Lynn Gillam - 2016 - Clinical Ethics 11 (1):1-8.
    Dealing with situations where parents’ views about treatment for their child are strongly opposed to doctors’ views is one major area of ethical challenge in paediatric health care. The traditional approach focuses on the child’s best interests, but this is problematic for a number of reasons. The Harm Principle test is regarded by many ethicists as more appropriate than the best interests test. Despite this, use of the best interests test for intervening in parental decisions is still very common in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   63 citations  
  • Parental refusals of medical treatment: The harm principle as threshold for state intervention.Douglas Diekema - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (4):243-264.
    Minors are generally considered incompetent to provide legally binding decisions regarding their health care, and parents or guardians are empowered to make those decisions on their behalf. Parental authority is not absolute, however, and when a parent acts contrary to the best interests of a child, the state may intervene. The best interests standard is the threshold most frequently employed in challenging a parent''s refusal to provide consent for a child''s medical care. In this paper, I will argue that the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   122 citations  
  • The Best-Interests Standard as Threshold, Ideal, and Standard of Reasonableness.L. M. Kopelman - 1997 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (3):271-289.
    The best-interests standard is a widely used ethical, legal, and social basis for policy and decision-making involving children and other incompetent persons. It is under attack, however, as self-defeating, individualistic, unknowable, vague, dangerous, and open to abuse. The author defends this standard by identifying its employment, first, as a threshold for intervention and judgment (as in child abuse and neglect rulings), second, as an ideal to establish policies or prima facie duties, and, third, as a standard of reasonableness. Criticisms of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   76 citations  
  • Abandoning Informed Consent.Robert M. Veatch - 1995 - Hastings Center Report 25 (2):5-12.
    Clinicians cannot obtain valid consent to treatment because they cannot guess which treatment option will serve a particular patient's best interests. These guesses could be made more accurately if patients were paired with providers who share their deep values.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   60 citations  
  • Harm is all you need? Best interests and disputes about parental decision-making.Giles Birchley - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (2):111-115.
    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, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  • Overriding parents’ medical decisions for their children: a systematic review of normative literature.Rosalind J. McDougall & Lauren Notini - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (7):448-452.
    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. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  • Revisiting the Best Interest Standard: Uses and Misuses.Douglas S. Diekema - 2011 - Journal of Clinical Ethics 22 (2):128-133.
    The best interest standard is the threshold most frequently employed by physicians and ethics consultants in challenging a parent’s refusal to provide consent for a child’s medical care. In this article, I will argue that the best interest standard has evolved to serve two different functions, and that these functions differ sufficiently that they require separate standards. While the best interest standard is appropriate for choosing among alternative treatment options for children, making recommendations to parents, and making decisions on behalf (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Harm isn't all you need: parental discretion and medical decisions for a child: Table 1.Dominic Wilkinson & Tara Nair - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (2):116-118.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • The Best Interest Standard: Both Guide and Limit to Medical Decision Making on Behalf of Incapacitated Patients.Thaddeus Mason Pope - 2011 - Journal of Clinical Ethics 22 (2):134-138.
    In this issue of JCE, Douglas Diekema argues that the best interest standard (BIS) has been misemployed to serve two materially different functions. On the one hand, clinicians and parents use the BIS to recommend and to make treatment decisions on behalf of children. On the other hand, clinicians and state authorities use the BIS to determine when the government should interfere with parental decision-making authority. Diekema concedes that the BIS is appropriately used to “guide” parents in making medical treatment (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Indeterminacy and the normative basis of the harm threshold for overriding parental decisions: a response to Birchley.Rosalind J. McDougall - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (2):119-120.
    Birchley9s critique of the harm threshold for overriding parental decisions is successful in demonstrating that the harm threshold, like the best interests standard, suffers from the problem of indeterminacy. However, his focus on critiquing empirical rather than normative arguments for the harm threshold means that his broad conclusion that it is ‘ill-judged’ is not justified. Advocates of the harm threshold can accept that the concept of harm to a child is indeterminate, yet still invoke strong normative arguments for this way (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Medical ethics for children: applying the four principles to paediatrics.P. Baines - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (3):141-145.
    I will argue that there are difficulties with the application of the four principles approach to incompetent children. The most important principle – respect for autonomy – is not directly applicable to incompetent children and the most appropriate modification of the principle for them is not clear. The principle of beneficence – that one should act in the child’s interests – is complicated by difficulties in assessing what a child’s interests are and to which standard of interests those choosing for (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • The not unreasonable standard for assessment of surrogates and surrogate decisions.Rosamond Rhodes & Ian Holzman - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (4):367-386.
    Standard views on surrogate decision making present alternative ideal models of what ideal surrogates should consider in rendering a decision. They do not, however, explain the physician''s responsibility to a patient who lacks decisional capacity or how a physician should regard surrogates and surrogate decisions. The authors argue that it is critical to recognize the moral difference between a patient''s decisions and a surrogate''s and the professional responsibilities implied by that distinction. In every case involving a patient who lacks decisional (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • The determination of the best interests in relation to childhood immunisation.Angus Dawson - 2005 - Bioethics 19 (1):72-89.
    ABSTRACTThere are many different ethical arguments that might be advanced for and against childhood vaccinations. In this paper I explore one particular argument that focuses on the idea that such vaccinations are justifiable because they are held to be in the best interests of a particular child. Two issues arise from this idea. The first issue is how best interests are to be determined in this case. The second issue is what follows from this to justify potential interventions within the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • Measles Vaccination is Best for Children: The Argument for Relying on Herd Immunity Fails.Johan Christiaan Bester - 2017 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 14 (3):375-384.
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • What Really Is in a Child’s Best Interest? Toward a More Precise Picture of the Interests of Children.Janet Malek - 2009 - Journal of Clinical Ethics 20 (2):175-182.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Using a new analysis of the best interests standard to address cultural disputes: Whose data, which values?Loretta M. Kopelman & Arthur E. Kopelman - 2007 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (5):373-391.
    Clinicians sometimes disagree about how much to honor surrogates’ deeply held cultural values or traditions when they differ from those of the host country. Such a controversy arose when parents requested a cultural accommodation to let their infant die by withdrawing life saving care. While both the parents and clinicians claimed to be using the Best Interests Standard to decide what to do, they were at an impasse. This standard is analyzed into three necessary and jointly sufficient conditions and used (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • A Life Below the Threshold? Examining Conflict Between Ethical Principles and Parental Values In Neonatal Treatment Decision Making.Thomas V. Cunningham - 2016 - Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics 6 (1).
    Three common ethical principles for establishing the limits of parental authority in pediatric treatment decision making are the harm principle, the principle of best interest, and the threshold view. This paper consider how these principles apply to a case of a premature neonate with multiple significant comorbidities whose mother wanted all possible treatments, and whose health care providers wondered whether it would be ethically permissible to allow him to die comfortably despite her wishes. Whether and how these principles help to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Standards for Family Decisions: Replacing Best Interests with Harm Prevention.Rebecca Dresser - 2003 - American Journal of Bioethics 3 (2):54-55.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Disclosing Secondary Findings from Pediatric Sequencing to Families: Considering the “Benefit to Families”.Benjamin S. Wilfond, Conrad V. Fernandez & Robert C. Green - 2015 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 43 (3):552-558.
    Secondary findings for adult-onset diseases in pediatric clinical sequencing can benefit parents or other family members. In the absence of data showing harm, it is ethically reasonable for parents to request such information, because in other types of medical decision-making, they are often given discretion unless their decisions clearly harm the child. Some parents might not want this information because it could distract them from focusing on the child's underlying condition that prompted sequencing. Collecting family impact data may improve future (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • [Book review] children, families, and health care decision making. [REVIEW]Lainie Friedman Ross - 2002 - Ethics 112 (3):639-641.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   73 citations  
  • Deciding for a child: a comprehensive analysis of the best interest standard. [REVIEW]Erica K. Salter - 2012 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (3):179-198.
    This article critically examines, and ultimately rejects, the best interest standard as the predominant, go-to ethical and legal standard of decision making for children. After an introduction to the presumption of parental authority, it characterizes and distinguishes six versions of the best interest standard according to two key dimensions related to the types of interests emphasized. Then the article brings three main criticisms against the best interest standard: (1) that it is ill-defined and inconsistently appealed to and applied, (2) that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   40 citations  
  • Are the judgments of conscience unreasonable?Edward Andrew & Peter Lindsay - 2008 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (2):235-254.
    This paper examines the tensions in classical liberal theory ? particularly that of Locke and Kant ? between reason and conscience, and in contemporary liberal theory between the demands of reasonableness and the dictates of conscience. We intend to show that the relationship between reasonableness and conscience is both unstable and necessary; on occasions there seems to exist a moral obligation to provide public reasons for our conduct and at other times the silent call of conscience precludes public justification of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation