Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. 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  
  • Should Kids Play (American) Football?Patrick Findler - 2015 - Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 42 (3):443-462.
    In recent years, Pop Warner, the world’s largest youth football organization, has seen its numbers decline. This decline is due to concerns about new research establishing a link between football and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a debilitating neurodegenerative disease. Hundreds of thousands of parents are now struggling with a difficult ethical issue: should kids play football? Since parents have an obligation to help children develop the capacities required for autonomous choice, the risks posed by football establish a strong presumption against allowing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Is the precautionary principle unscientific?David B. Resnik - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34 (2):329-344.
    The precautionary principle holds that we should not allow scientific uncertainty to prevent us from taking precautionary measures in response to potential threats that are irreversible and potentially disastrous. Critics of the principle claim that it deters progress and development, is excessively risk-aversive and is unscientific. This paper argues that the principle can be scientific provided that the threats addressed by the principle are plausible threats, and the precautionary measures adopted are reasonable. The paper also argues that one may use (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   30 citations  
  • The child's right to an open future?Claudia Mills - 2003 - Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (4):499–509.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   45 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  
  • Kid’s Cage-fighting: It Should Be Banned, Right?Taryn Knox & Lynley Anderson - 2021 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 16 (3):300-317.
    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...
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Weighing Risks and Benefits.Sven Ove Hansson - 2004 - Topoi 23 (2):145-152.
    It is almost universally acknowledged that risks have to be weighed against benefits, but there are different ways to perform the weighing. In conventional risk analysis, collectivist risk-weighing is the standard. This means that an option is accepted if the sum of all individual benefits outweighs the sum of all individual risks. In practices originating in clinical medicine, such as ethical appraisals of clinical trials, individualist risk-weighing is the standard. This implies a much stricter criterion for risk acceptance, namely that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Children, Paternalism and the Development of Autonomy.Amy Mullin - 2014 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (3):413-426.
    This paper addresses the issue of paternalism in child-rearing. Since the parent–child relationship seems to be the linguistic source of the concept, one may be tempted to assume that raising a child represents a particularly appropriate sphere for paternalism. The parent–child relationship is generally understood as a relationship that is supposed to promote the development and autonomy-formation of the child, so that the apparent source of the concept is a form of autonomy-oriented paternalism. Far from taking paternalism to be overtly (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  • Extending human lifespan and the precautionary paradox.John Harris & Søren Holm - 2002 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (3):355 – 368.
    This paper argues that a precautionary approach to scientific progress of the sort advocated by Walter Glannon with respect to life-extending therapies involves both incoherence and irresolvable paradox. This paper demonstrates the incoherence of the precautionary approach in many circumstances and argues that with respect to life-extending therapies we have at present no persuasive reasons for a moratorium on such research.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   35 citations  
  • Doctoring risk: Responding to risk-taking in athletes.Lynley Anderson - 2007 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (2):119 – 134.
    Athletes who wish to compete in spite of high risk of injury can prove a challenge for sports doctors. Overriding an athlete's choices could be considered to be unnecessarily overbearing or paternalistic. However simply accepting all risk-taking as the voluntary choice of an individual fails to acknowledge the context of high-level sport and the circumstances in which an athlete may be being coerced or in some other way be making a less than voluntary choice. Restricting the voluntary choices of an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Sport, Parental Autonomy, and Children’s Right to an Open Future.Nicholas Dixon - 2007 - Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 34 (2):147-159.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Sport-related concussion research agenda beyond medical science: culture, ethics, science, policy.Mike McNamee, Lynley C. Anderson, Pascal Borry, Silvia Camporesi, Wayne Derman, Soren Holm, Taryn Rebecca Knox, Bert Leuridan, Sigmund Loland, Francisco Javier Lopez Frias, Ludovica Lorusso, Dominic Malcolm, David McArdle, Brad Partridge, Thomas Schramme & Mike Weed - forthcoming - Journal of Medical Ethics.
    The Concussion in Sport Group guidelines have successfully brought the attention of brain injuries to the global medical and sport research communities, and has significantly impacted brain injury-related practices and rules of international sport. Despite being the global repository of state-of-the-art science, diagnostic tools and guides to clinical practice, the ensuing consensus statements remain the object of ethical and sociocultural criticism. The purpose of this paper is to bring to bear a broad range of multidisciplinary challenges to the processes and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Last Chance Therapies and Managed Care: Pluralism, Fair Procedures, and Legitimacy.Norman Daniels & James E. Sabin - 1998 - Hastings Center Report 28 (2):27-42.
    How can health plans make fair determinations about when “experimental” (and costly) treatments such as high dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation should be covered despite lack of clear clinical consensus about their benefits? Different models for managing “last chance” therapies evolving in some health plans offer promising examples of how issues of fairness and legitimacy in decisionmaking can be addressed.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations