Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 425–433 | Cite as

Is decision-making capacity an “essentially contested” concept in pediatrics?

  • Eva De Clercq
  • Katharina Ruhe
  • Michel Rost
  • Bernice Elger
Scientifc Contribution


Key legislations in many countries emphasize the importance of involving children in decisions regarding their own health at a level commensurate with their age and capacities. Research is engaged in developing tools to assess capacity in children in order to facilitate their responsible involvement. These instruments, however, are usually based on the cognitive criteria for capacity assessment as defined by Appelbaum and Grisso and thus ill adapted to address the life-situation of children. The aim of this paper is to revisit and critically reflect upon the current definitions of decision-making capacity. For this purpose, we propose to see capacity through the lens of essential contestability as it warns us against any reification of what it means to have capacity. Currently, capacity is often perceived of as a mental or cognitive ability which somehow resides within the person, obscuring the fact that capacity is not just an objective property which can be assessed, but always operates within a dominant cultural framework that “creates” that same capacity and defines the threshold between capable and incapable in a specific situation. Defining capacity as an essentially contested concept means using it in a questioning mode and giving space to alternative interpretations that might inform and advance the debate surrounding decision-making.


Capacity Decision-making Essentially contested concept Pediatrics Children 


  1. Appelbaum, P.S. 1988. Assessing Patients’ capacities to consent to treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 319 (25): 1635–1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appelbaum, P.S. 2007. Assessment of patients’ competence to con-sent to treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 357: 1834–1840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baines, P. 2011. Assent for children’s participation in research is incoherent and wrong. Archives of Disease in Childhood 96 (10): 960–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banner, N.F. 2013. Can procedural and substantive elements of decision-making be reconciled in assessments of mental capacity. International Journal of Law in Context 9 (1): 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berghmans, R., D., Dickenson, and R., Ter Meulen. 2004. Mental capacity: In search of alternative perspectives. Health Care Analysis 12 (4): 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bielby, P. 2005. The conflation of competence and capacity in English medical law: A philosophical critique. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8 (3): 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breden, T.M., and J., Vollmann.. 2004. The cognitive based approach of capacity assessment in psychiatry. A philosophical critique of the MacCAT-T. Health Care Analysis 12 (4): 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bridgeman, J. 2007. Parental responsibility, young children and healthcare Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchanan, A. E., and D.W., Brock. 1989. Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Charland, L.C. 1998. Is Mr Spock mentally competent? Competence to consent and emotion. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 5 (1): 67–81.Google Scholar
  11. Charland, L.C. 2015. Decision-making capacity. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
  12. Clarke, B. 1979. Eccentrically contested concepts. British Journal of Political Science 9: 122–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collier, D., F.D., Hidalgo, and A.O., Maciuceanu. 2006. Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications. Journal of Political Ideologies 11 (3): 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coyne, I. 2008. Children’s participation in consultations and decision-making at health service level: A review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Studies 45 (11): 1682–1689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. David-Hillel, R., and W.B., Gallie. 2010. Essentially Contested Concepts. Philosophical Papers 39 (2): 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Clercq, E., D.O, Badarau, K.M., Ruhe, and T., Wangmo. 2015. Body matters: Rethinking the ethical acceptability of non-beneficial clinical research with children. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 18 (3):421–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Vries, M. C., J.W., Wit, D.P., Engberts, G.J., Kaspers, and E. van Leeuwen, 2010. Norms versus practice: Pediatric oncologists’ attitudes towards involving adolescents in decision-making concerning research participation. Pediatric Blood and Cancer 55 (1): 123–128.Google Scholar
  18. de Vries, M. C., M., Houtlosser, J.W., Wit, D.P., Engberts, D., Bresters, G.J., Kaspers, and E., van Leeuwen. 2011. Ethical issues at the interface of clinical care and research practice in pediatric oncology: A narrative review of parents’ and physicians’ experiences. BMC Medical Ethics. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-12-18.Google Scholar
  19. Dekkers, W.J.M. 2001. Autonomy and dependence: Chronic physical illness and decision-making capacity. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (2): 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donnelly, M. 2010. Healthcare decision-making and the law. Autonomy, capacity and the limits of liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunn, L., M., Nowrangi, B., Palmer, D., Jeste, and E. Saks. 2006. Assessing decisional capacity for clinical research or treatment: A review of instruments. American Journal of Psychiatry 163: 1323–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dworkin, R. 1972. The Jurisprudence of Richard Nixon. The New York Review of Books 18 (8): 27–35.Google Scholar
  23. Ehrenberg, K.M. 2011. Law is not (best considered) an essentially contested concept. Journal of Law in Context 7 (2): 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gabe, J., G., Olumide, and M. Bury. 2004. 'It takes three to tango': A framework for understanding patient partnership in paediatric clinics. Social Science & Medicine 59: 1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gallie, W.B. 1956. Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 56: 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gallie, W.B. (1964) Philosophy and the Historical Understanding. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
  27. Ganzini, L., L., Volicer, W.A., Nelson, E., Fox, and A.R. Derse, 2004. Ten myths about decision-making capacity. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 5 (4): 263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison, C., N.P., Kenny, M., Sidarous, and M., Rowell, 1997. Bioethics for clinicians: 9. Involving children in medical decisions. Canadian Medical Association Journal 156 (6): 825–828.Google Scholar
  29. Hein, I., P., Troost, R., Lindeboom, M., de Vries, C., Zwaan, and R., Lindauer, 2012. Assessing children’s competence to consent in research by a standardized tool: A validity study. BMC Pediatrics 12: 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hein, I., P., Troost, R., Lindeboom, M.A., Benninga, C.M., Zwaan, J.B., Van Goudoever, and R.J. Lindauer, 2014. Accuracy of the macarthur competence assessment tool for clinical research (MacCAT-CR) for measuring children’s competence to consent to clinical research. JAMA Pediatr 168 (12): 1147–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hein, I. M., P.W., Troost, A., Broersma, M.C., de Vries, J.G., Daams, and R.J., Lindauer, 2015a. Why is it hard to make progress in assessing children’s decision-making competence? BMC Medical Ethics. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-16-1.Google Scholar
  32. Hein, I.M., P.W., Troost, R., Lindeboom, M.A., Benninga, C.M., Zwaan, J.B., Van Goudoever, and R.J. Lindauer, 2015b. Key factors in children’s competence to consent to clinical research. BMC Medical Ethics. doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0066-0.Google Scholar
  33. Hein, I. M., M.C., de Vries, P.W., Troost, G., Meynen, J.B., Van Goudoever, and R.J., Lindauer. 2015c. Informed consent instead of assent is appropriate in children from the age of twelve: Policy implications of new findings on children’s competence to consent to clinical research. BMC Medical Ethics. doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0067-2.Google Scholar
  34. Hermann, H., 2016. Emotion and value in the evaluation of medical decision-making capacity: A narrative review of arguments. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jennings, B. 2016. Reconceptualizing autonomy: A relational turn. Hastings Center Report 46 (3):11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kilkelly, U., and M., Donnelly. 2006. The child’s right to be heard in the health care setting. Perspectives of children, parents and health professionals. Office of the Minister for Children. Assessed 17 May 2016.
  37. Kodish, E. 2003. Informed consent for pediatric research: Is it really possible? The Journal of Pediatrics 42 (2): 89–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lalumera, E. 2014. On the explanatory value of the concept-conception distinction. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio 8 (3): 73–81.Google Scholar
  39. Lansdown, G. 2005. The evolving capacities of the child. Sienna: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  40. Mackenzie, C. 2010. Conceptions of the body and conceptions of autonomy in Bioethics. In Feminist Bioethics: At the Center, On the Margins, eds. J. L. Scully, L. Baldwin-Ragaven, and P. Fitzpatrick, 71–90. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mackenzie, C., and N., Stoljar. 2000. Relational autonomy. Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mahr, G. 2015. Narrative Medicine and decision-making capacity. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 21: 503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matthews, G., and A., Mullin 2015. The Philosophy of Childhood. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed 12 July 2016. Retrieved from:
  44. Miller, J. 2003. Never Too Young: How young children can take responsibility and make decisions. London: Save the Children Fund.Google Scholar
  45. Moore, L., and S., Kirk. 2010. A Literature review of children’s and young people’s participation in decisions relating to health care. Journal of Clinical Nursing 19: 2215–2225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Munro, N. 2013. The social construction of decision-making capacity. Mental Health and Mental Capacity Law.
  47. Mutcherson, K.M. 2005. whose body is it anyway—an updated model of healthcare decision-making rights for adolescents. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 14 (2): 251–325.Google Scholar
  48. Peleg, N. 2013. Reconceptualising the child’s right to development: children and the capability approach. s Rights 21: 523–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pinxten, W., H., Nys, and K., Dierickx. 2008. Regulating trust in pediatric clinical trials. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11 (4): 439–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rodriguez, P.A. 2015. Human dignity as an essentially contested concept. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 28 (4): 743–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ross, L.F. 2004. Children in medical research: Balancing protection and access: Has the pendulum swung too far? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 47 (4): 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ross, L.F. 2016. Theory and practice of pediatric bioethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 58 (3): 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roth, L., A., Meisel, and C., Lidz, 1977. Tests of competency to consent to treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry 134: 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruben, D.H., and W.B., Gallie. 2010. Essentially contested concepts. Philosophical Papers 39 (2): 257–270. and .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ruhe, K., T., Wangmo, D.O., Badarau, B.E., Elger, and F., Niggli. 2015. Decision-making capacity of children and adolescents—suggestions for advancing the concept’s implementation in pediatric healthcare. European Journal of Pediatrics 174: 775–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ruhe, K., E., De Clercq, T., Wangmo, and B.S. Elger. 2016. Relational capacity: Broadening the notion of decision-making capacity in paediatric healthcare. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. doi:10.1007/s11673-016-9735-z.Google Scholar
  58. Runeson, I., I., Hallström, G., Elander, and G. Hermerén. 2002. Children’s participation in the decision-making process during hospitalization: An observational study. Nursing Ethics 9 (6): 583–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Secker, B. 1990. Labelling patient (in)competence: A feminist analysis of medico-legal discourse. Journal of Social Philosophy 30 (2): 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shirkey, H. 1968. Therapeutic orphans. Journal of Pediatrics 72 (1): 119–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sibley, A., A.J., Pollard, R., Fitzpatrick, and M., Sheehan. 2016. Developing a new justification for assent. BMC Medical Ethics. doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0085-x.Google Scholar
  62. Sjöstrand, M., K., Petter, L., Sandman, G., Helgesson, S., Eriksson, and N., Juth. 2015. Conceptions of decision-making capacity in psychiatry: interviews with Swedish psychiatrists. BMC Medical Ethics: 16–34.Google Scholar
  63. van der Burg, W. 2016. Law as a second-order essentially contested concept. Erasmus Working Paper Series on Jurisprudence and Socio-Legal Studies 16. SSRN:
  64. Waldron, J. 2002. Is the rule of law an essentially contested concept (in Florida)? Law and Philosophy 21 (2): 137–164.Google Scholar
  65. Waligora, M., J., Rózyńska, and J., Piasecki. 2016. Child’s objection to non-beneficial research: capacity and distress based models. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 19: 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wangmo, T., E., De Clercq, K., Ruhe, M., Beck-Popovic, J., Rischewski, R., Angst, M., Ansari and B.S., Elger. (2016). Better to know than to imagine: Including children in their health care. The American Journal of Bioethics. doi:10.1080/23294515.2016.1207724.Google Scholar
  67. Weithorn, L.A., and S.B., Campbell. 1982. The competency of children and adolescents to make informed treatment decisions. Early Adolescence 53 (6): 1589–1598.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva De Clercq
    • 1
  • Katharina Ruhe
    • 2
  • Michel Rost
    • 1
  • Bernice Elger
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Biomedical EthicsUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.BaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations