Adolescents present a puzzle. There are foundational unclarities about how they should be regarded as decision-makers. Although superficially adolescents may appear to have mature decisional capacity, their decision-making is in many ways unlike that of adults. Despite this seemingly obvious fact, a concern for the claims of autonomy has led to the development of the legal doctrine of the mature minor. This legal construct considers adolescents, as far as possible, as equivalent to adults for the purpose of medical decision-making. The (...) movement to support independent decision-making by adolescents through providing information to them and securing their consent apart from their parents is encouraged by those legal understandings that hold that unemancipated minors should generally be considered as possessing effective decisional capacity. Such legal structures, however, do not adequately take account of the wide variations in adolescent capacities, the immaturity of most adolescent decision-makers, or the important contributions made by parents to the development of their adolescents through parental partnering in the adolescent’s decision-making. The data available indicate that in general adolescents should be regarded as apprentice decision-makers who should make decisions in collaboration with their parents until at least the age of 18. Steps should not be taken pre-emptively to isolate adolescents from the guidance of their parents. As a general rule, what Piker has referred to as “collaborative paternalism” appears most likely both to protect adolescents from their own untoward choices, while also very importantly helping them with parental guidance to develop into mature decision-makers with the capacity to make medical choices on their own. (shrink)

This special thematic issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy brings together a cross-cultural set of scholars from Asia, Europe, and North America critically to explore foundational questions of familial authority and the implications of such findings for organ procurement policies designed to increase access to transplantation. The substantial disparity between the available supply of human organs and demand for organ transplantation creates significant pressure to manipulate public policy to increase organ procurement. As the articles in this issue explore, (...) however, even if well intentioned, the desire to maximize organ procurement does not justify undermining foundational elements of human flourishing, such as the family. While defending at times quite different understandings of autonomy, informed consent, and familial authority, each author makes clear that a principled appreciation of the family is necessary. Otherwise, health care practice will treat the family in a cynical and instrumental fashion unlikely to support social or individual good. (shrink)

Belgium has recently extended its euthanasia legislation to minors, making it the first legislation in the world that does not specify any age limit. I consider two strands in the opposition to this legislation. First, I identify five arguments in the public debate to the effect that euthanasia for minors is somehow worse than euthanasia for adults—viz. arguments from weightiness, capability of discernment, pressure, sensitivity and sufficient palliative care—and show that these arguments are wanting. Second, there is another position in (...) the public debate that wishes to keep the current age restriction on the books and have ethics boards exercise discretion in euthanasia decisions for minors. I interpret this position on the background of Velleman’s “Against the Right to Die” and show that, although costs remain substantial, it actually can provide some qualified support against extending euthanasia legislation to minors. (shrink)