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 (...) it is unreasonably demanding and narrow, and (3) that it fails to respect the family. Finally, it argues that despite the best interest standard’s potent rhetorical power, it is irreparably encumbered by too much inconsistency and confusion and should be rejected. (shrink)

Hastings Center Report, Volume 52, Issue 1, Page 42-50, January/February 2022.

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)

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 (...) to resolve the question of how much to accommodate cultural preferences and how to treat this infant. The extreme versions of absolutism and relativism are rejected. Properly understood, the Best Interests Standard can serve as a powerful tool in settling disputes about how to make good decisions for those who cannot decide for themselves. (shrink)

When making decisions for adults who lack decision-making capacity and have no discernable preferences, widespread support exists for using the Best Interests Standard. This policy appeals to adults and is compatible with many important recommendations for persons facing end-of-life choices.Common objections to the policy are discussed as well as different meanings of this Standard identified, such as using it to express goals or ideals and to make practical decisions incorporating what reasonable persons would want. For reasons of consistency, fairness, and (...) compassion, this standard should be used for all incapacitated persons. (shrink)

Modern parents, particularly in countries with highly developed public health systems, are not short of guidance about how to feed their children.1 Advice flows freely from many sources. State organs, particularly health departments and health care providers, offer advice with a reassuringly official provenance. Nutritional and pediatric societies, health-related charities, childcare manuals, parenting websites, and nutrition publications draw on scientific research in formulating their advice. Newspapers and magazines report the findings of the latest nutrition studies. Advice is also relayed informally (...) and personally, often with glosses drawn from personal experience.. (shrink)

IntroductionIntensive care units are places where technologically advanced and aggressive treatment is the norm. End-of-life decision making for children in pediatric intensive care units is a complex process both medically and ethically. The author examined providers’ decision-making processes that influence both the technique of conversations and the recommendations given to parents regarding limitation or withdrawal of life sustaining treatments.MethodsA qualitative study was conducted in a large PICU. Interview data were analyzed by coding all transcripts and identifying concepts and themes that (...) were then used in the formation of a conceptual framework. This analysis was validated with peer review sessions.ResultsThe author identified four major themes regarding decision-making. They are: Expectations and Perspectives, Communication Enhancers and Inhibitors, Decision Enablers and Barriers, and Conversation Mechanics.DiscussionAdditional research is needed to fully understand the complex decisi... (shrink)

Although there are many different moral arguments concerning the use of Best Interests in neonatal decision-making, there seems in practice a firm commitment to application of the concept. And yet, there is still little reflection given by practitioners about what employing a Best Interest determination means in infant care. The following lays out a comprehensive taxonomy of interest-sources in order to provide for more robust considerations of what constitutes best interests of/for neonates.

Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) is one of the 25 syndromic forms of obesity, in which patients present—in addition to different degrees of obesity—intellectual disability, endocrine disturbs, hyperphagia and/or other signs of hypothalamic dysfunction. In front of a severe/extreme obesity and the failure of non-invasive treatments, bariatric surgery is proposed as a therapeutic option. The complexity of the clinical condition, which could affect the long-term effects of bariatric surgery, and the frequent association with a mild to severe intellectual disability raise some ethical (...) concerns in the treatment of obese PWS adolescents. This article analyses these issues referring to the principles of healthcare ethics: beneficence/non-maleficence (proportionality of treatments; minimisation of risks); respect of autonomy; justice. Based on these principles, three hypothetical scenarios are defined: (1) obese PWS adolescent, capable of making an autonomous decision; (2) obese PWS adolescent with a severe intellectual disability, whose parents agree with bariatric surgery; (3) obese PWS adolescent with a life-threatening condition and a severe intellectual disability, whose parents do not agree with bariatric surgery. The currently available evidence on efficacy and safety of bariatric surgery in PWS adolescents with extreme or severe obesity and the lack of adequate long-term follow-up suggests great caution even in a very life-threatening condition. Clinicians must always obtain a full IQ assessment of patients by psychologists. A multidisciplinary team is needed to analyse the clinical, psychological, social and ethical aspects and organise support for patient and parents, involving also the hospital ethical committee or, if necessary, legal authorities. (shrink)

We argue that the current ethical and regulatory framework for permissible risk levels in pediatric research can be helpfully understood in terms of children’s moral right to adequate protection from harm. Our analysis provides a rationale for what we propose as the highest level of permissible risk in pediatric research without the prospect of direct benefit: what we call “relatively minor” risk. We clarify the justification behind the usual standards of “minimal risk” and “a minor increase over minimal risk” and (...) explain why it is permissible to impose any risks at all on child participants who do not stand to benefit directly from enrollment in research. Finally, we illuminate some aspects of the concept of “best interests.”. (shrink)

Prevailing philosophies about parental and other caregiver responsibilities toward children tend to be protectionist, grounded in informed benevolence in a way that countenances rather than circumvents intrusive paternalism. And among the kinds of children an adult might be called upon to parent or otherwise care for, children with disabilities figure among those for whom the strongest and snuggest shielding is supposed be deployed. In this article, we examine whether this equation of securing well-being with sheltering by protective parents and other (...) care-givers should unreflectively be adopted for disabled children. We also consider why healthcare providers might reasonably be reluctant to yield to this principle, even if parents instinctively suppose that protectionism is the parenting policy that best serves their disabled child’s interest. We contend that caregivers owe children with disabilities at least as much, and possibly more, respect for self-governance than other children need. In spite of disabled children’s vulnerability and even in view of it, we argue that they should be accorded not only welfare rights to well-being but at least a modified version of liberty rights as well. Healthcare providers are especially favorably positioned to facilitate the latter response. The main components of respectful caregiving can come into conflict with one another, but we present some priorities that advise against adopting a protectionist account of parenting rights, or at least against accepting protectionist views that focus parenting narrowly on shaping ideas about the child’s welfare. In sum, caring for a disabled child, we argue, involves more than creating conditions that will afford her contentment and comfort over the course of life. (shrink)

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 (...) understand what was morally right for the child is questioned. The paper concludes that the principles were of some value in understanding the moral geography of the case, but that the case reveals common bioethical principles for medical decision making are problematically value-laden because they are inconsistent with the widespread moral value of medical vitalism. (shrink)