American Journal of Bioethics 18 (8):9-19 (2018)
Abstract |
For many years the prevailing paradigm for medical decision making for children has been the best interest standard. Recently, some authors have proposed that Mill’s “harm principle” should be used to mediate or to replace the best interest standard. This article critically examines the harm principle movement and identifies serious defects within the project of using Mill’s harm principle for medical decision making for children. While the harm principle proponents successfully highlight some difficulties in present-day use of the best interest standard, the use of the harm principle suffers substantial normative and conceptual problems. A medical decision-making framework for children is suggested, grounded in the four principles. It draws on the best interest standard, incorporates concepts of harm, and provides two questions that can act as guide and limit in medical decision making for children.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
ISBN(s) | |
DOI | 10.1080/15265161.2018.1485757 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making.Allen E. Buchanan & Dan W. Brock - 1989 - Cambridge University Press.
Parental Refusals of Medical Treatment: The Harm Principle as Threshold for State Intervention.Douglas Diekema - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (4):243-264.
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.
View all 26 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Secular Clinical Ethicists Should Not Be Neutral Toward All Religious Beliefs: An Argument for a Moral-Metaphysical Proceduralism.Abram L. Brummett - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 21 (6):5-16.
The Best Interest Standard and Children: Clarifying a Concept and Responding to its Critics.Johan Christiaan Bester - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (2):117-124.
The Best Interest Standard for Health Care Decision Making: Definition and Defense.Thaddeus Mason Pope - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (8):36-38.
Why the Best Interest Standard Is Not Self-Defeating, Too Individualistic, Unknowable, Vague or Subjective.Loretta M. Kopelman - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (8):34-36.
The Best Interest Standard and the Child’s Right to an Open Future.Aliya O. Affdal & Vardit Ravitsky - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (8):74-76.
View all 24 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Agreed: The Harm Principle Cannot Replace the Best Interest Standard … but the Best Interest Standard Cannot Replace The Harm Principle Either.D. Micah Hester, Kellie R. Lang, Nanibaa' A. Garrison & Douglas S. Diekema - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (8):38-40.
Parental Refusals of Medical Treatment: The Harm Principle as Threshold for State Intervention.Douglas Diekema - 2004 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (4):243-264.
The Precautionary Principle and Medical Decision Making.David B. Resnik - 2004 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3):281 – 299.
Mill's Harm Principle as Social Justice.Huodong Li - 2004 - Dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
Rumors of the Best Interest Standard’s Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated, and the Harm Principle Remains Tenuous: Responding to My Commentators.Johan Christiaan Bester - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (8):W1-W5.
The Principle of Nonmaleficence and the Problems of Reproductive Decision-Making.Jeffrey Paul Kahn - 1989 - Dissertation, Georgetown University
Rethinking the Offense Principle.A. P. Simester & Andrew von Hirsch - 2002 - Legal Theory 8 (3):269-295.
The Ethical Action Principle in Decision-Making: From the Principle of Autonomy to the Principle of Consensus.Kumiko Yoshitake - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 5:75-83.
The Harm Principle and Genetically Modified Food.Nils Holtug - 2001 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):168-178.
Harm, Rights, and Liberty: Towards a Non-Normative Reading of Mill's Liberty Principle. Mulnix - 2009 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2):196-217.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2018-08-24
Total views
51 ( #220,023 of 2,497,768 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #89,700 of 2,497,768 )
2018-08-24
Total views
51 ( #220,023 of 2,497,768 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #89,700 of 2,497,768 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads