Pedatrics 134:S81-S86 (2014)

Authors
Daniel Groll
Carleton College
Abstract
In this article, I distinguish between 4 models for thinking about how to balance the interests of parents, families, and a sick child: (1) the oxygen mask model; (2) the wide interests model; (3) the family interests model; and (4) the direct model. The oxygen mask model – which takes its name from flight attendants' directives to parents to put on their own oxygen mask before putting on their child's – says that parents should consider their own interests only insofar as doing so is, ultimately, good for the sick child. The wide interests model suggests that in doing well by my child I am at the very same time doing well by myself. My interests can, and plausibly do, encompass the interests of others; they are, to that extent, wide. There is, then, no sharp separation between the interests of the sick child and the interests of other family members. In the family interests model, families themselves are seen as having interests that are neither identical to the sum, nor a simple function, of the interests of individual family members. The family has goals, values, and aspirations that are essentially corporate rather than individual. According to this model, these family interests can explain why sacrifices can sometimes be demanded of some family members for the sake of others in a medical setting. Finally, the direct model takes a simpler view of family members' interests; it claims that these interests matter simply on their own and should be taken into account in making treatment decisions for a sick child. This model openly considers the competing interests that parents and other family members often have when caring for a sick child, and advocates for weighing those interests when making decisions for and about the sick child. While there is room for all four models at the bedside, I argue that the direct model should be highlighted in clinical decision-making.
Keywords well-being  family  medical ethics  pediatric decision-making  best interests
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,043
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Moral Hazard in Pediatrics.Donald Brunnquell & Christopher M. Michaelson - 2016 - American Journal of Bioethics 16 (7):29-38.
Prologomena to Any Future Pediatric Bioethics.Jeremy R. Garrett - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (8):63-65.
Sacrifice and Relational Well-Being.Vanessa Carbonell - 2018 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 26 (3):335-353.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Parenting and the Best Interests of Minors.R. S. Downie & F. Randall - 1997 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (3):219-231.
Death and Best Interests.Paul Baines - 2008 - Clinical Ethics 3 (4):171-175.
How Bad Can a Good Enough Parent Be?Liam Shields - 2016 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):163-182.
Parental Authority and Pediatric Bioethical Decision Making.M. J. Cherry - 2010 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 35 (5):553-572.
The Confucian Bioethics of Surrogate Decision Making: Its Communitarian Roots.Ruiping Fan - 2011 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (5):301-313.
Child Abuse: Parental Rights and the Interests of the Child.David Archard - 1990 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 7 (2):183-194.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-10-05

Total views
39 ( #288,737 of 2,498,570 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #426,098 of 2,498,570 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes