The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child risks harm to adolescents insofar as it encourages not only poor decision making by adolescents but also parenting styles that will have an adverse impact on the development of mature decision-making capacities in them. The empirical psychological and neurophysiological data weigh against augmenting and expression of the rights of children. Indeed, the data suggest grounds for expanding parental authority, not limiting its scope. At the very least, any adequate appreciation of (...) the moral claims regarding the authority of parents with respect to the decision-making capacity of adolescents needs to be set within an understanding of the psychological and neurophysiological facts regarding the development of adolescent decision-making capacity. (shrink)

Within and among societies, there are competing understandings of the status of children, including debates over whether they can bear rights and, if so, which rights they bear and against whom, and their capacity to make decisions and be held responsible and accountable for actions. There also are different understandings of what constitutes a family; what authority parents have over and regarding their children; and what should happen to children who are without parents because of death, desertion, or imprisonment. These (...) and other related debates reflect deep differences in worldviews, in how one understands the legitimate role of the state, in how one comes to know the proper way to raise children, and so on. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child purports to reflect international convergence on the rights of children, on how decisions concerning children should be made, and on how children ought to be treated by the state and by their parents. This paper examines whether the Convention's framework for decision making concerning children is an appropriate framework for pediatric bioethics. Questions about how to make health care decisions for children ultimately are questions of who is in authority to make and judge such decisions. Establishing who is in authority, determining whether there are any limits to that authority and, if so, defining those limits should be the focus of efforts to develop and implement a pediatric decision-making framework. (shrink)

In this paper, I offer a view beyond that which would narrowly reduce the role of parents in medical decision making to acting as custodians of the best interests of children and toward an account of family authority and family autonomy. As a fundamental social unit, the good of the family is usually appreciated, at least in part, in terms of its ability successfully to instantiate its core moral and cultural understandings as well as to pass on such commitments to (...) future generations. The putative rights of children to expression, information, freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and to freedom of association with others are, in this essay, assessed from the perspective of those conditions necessary for the family to function as a moral community. In so doing, I respond to the move to liberate children from parental authority and to effect the transformation of the family as implied by the United Nations’ "Convention on the Rights of the Child" and the pediatric bioethics it supports. (shrink)

Over the past decade or so, the predominant patient-centered ethos in American bioethics has come under attack by critics who claim that it is morally deficient in certain respects, particularly when viewed in the context of acute-care decisionmaking. One line of criticism has been that the current ethic of patient autonomy gives an individual competent patient far too much decisional authority over the terms of his own treatment so that the patient is at complete liberty to neglect the ways in (...) which his medical decisions can drastically and negatively affect the lives of other family members. Given that family members must help shoulder the financial, emotional, and rehabilitative burdens involved in the patient's care, it has been argued that they too have a legitimate interest in choosing what sort of medical treatment the patient eventually receives. Another closely related line of criticism is that the prevailing focus on patient autonomy gives short shrift to the moral significance of the family as a genuine community. Echoing a view of the person advanced by most communitarian political theorists, some commentators have argued that the patient comes to the clinic so thoroughly embedded in a complex web of familial relationships and obligations that it does not make sense to identify him as the only person in the family to make decisions about treatment. (shrink)

This paper presents four different understandings of the family and their concomitant views of the authority of the family in pediatric medical decision making. These different views are grounded in robustly developed, and conflicting, worldviews supported by disparate basic premises about the nature of morality. The traditional worldviews are often found within religious communities that embrace foundational metaphysical premises at odds with the commitments of the liberal account of the family dominant in the secular culture of the West. These disputes (...) are substantial and ultimately irresolvable by sound rational argument because of the failure to share common foundational premises and rules of evidence. It is in light of these fundamental disagreements that there is a need to evaluate critically the claims and agenda advanced by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (shrink)