Advertisement

Theoretical Medicine

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 333–345 | Cite as

Adolescent decision-making: Giving weight to age-specific values

  • Rosalind Ekman Ladd
  • Edwin N. Forman
Article

Abstract

Adults who give proxy consent for medical treatment for adolescents must decide how much weight to give to adolescents' own preferences. There is evidence that some adolescents choose treatments different from what adults see as most reasonable. It is argued that adolescents choose according to age-specific values, i.e. values they hold, as adolescents, and which fulfil important developmental needs. Because not fulfilling these needs may do serious psychological damage, it is urged that proxies give weight to these values, up to the limit where it would endanger or profoundly limit future life.

Key words

Adolescent decision-making proxy consent informed consent bioethics developmental needs body image 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See Archard D.Children: Rights and Childhood. London: Routledge, 1993, esp. chapt. 1, for discussion of these issues and arguments. For a good review of the literature, see Brock D. Children's competence for health care decision making. In: Kopelman L, Moskop J, eds.Children and Health Care: Moral and Social Issues. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989: 181–211.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    For example, see Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry.How Old is Old Enough? The Age of Rights and Responsibilities. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gaylin W. Competence: no longer all or none. In: Gaylin W, Macklin R, eds.Who Speaks for the Child? New York: Plenum, 1982: 27–57.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewis CE. Decision-making related to health: when could/should children act responsibly? In Melton G, Koocher G, Saks M, eds.Children's Competence to Consent. New York: Plenum, 1983: 75–93.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Research Involving Children. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1977, xxix-xxi, 1–20.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Capron A. The competence of children as self-deciders in biomedical research. In: Gaylin: 27–57.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weithorn L, Campbell SB. The competency of children and adolescents to make informed treatment decisions.Child Dev. 1982;53:1589–1598.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Behavioral Research.Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues in Treatment Decisions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983: 132–136.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Slote M.Goods and Virtues. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schonfeld WA. The body and body image in adolescents. In: Caplan A, Lebovici S, eds.Adolescents: Psychosocial Perspectives. Boston: Basic Books, 1969.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis M.Clinical Aspects of Child Development. Philadelphia: Lea & Febinger, 1971: chapt. 16.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hofman A, Becker RD, Gabriel HP.The Hospitalized Adolescent. New York: Free Press, 1976: chapt. 1.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Slote: 22ff.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaylin: 3.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leiken S. Minors' assent or dissent in medical treatment.J. Pediatr 1983;102:169–176.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mill JS.On Liberty. Rapport E, ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1978.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Erikson E.Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton, 1968.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Valliant G.Adaptation to Life. Boston: Little, Brown, 1977.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levinson DJ.The Seasons of a Man's Life. New York: Knopf, 1978.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sheehy G.Passages: Predictable Crisis of Adult Life. New York: Dutton, 1976.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anonymous. Life flow.Psychology Today, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hofman: chapt. 1Google Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Ibid: chapt. 1 and 2.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Ibid: 16, 32.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The reasoning here is based on the kind of arguments offered in Feinberg J. The child's right to an open future. In: Aiken W, LaFollette H, eds.Whose Child? Children's Rights, Parental Authority, and State Power. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980: 124–153.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hofman: 174.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See, for example, Brock.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosalind Ekman Ladd
    • 1
  • Edwin N. Forman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyWheaton CollegeNortonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PediatricsBrown University Program in Medicine, and Rhode Island HospitalProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations