Advertisement

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 179–198 | Cite as

Deciding for a child: a comprehensive analysis of the best interest standard

  • Erica K. Salter
Article

Abstract

This article critically examines, and ultimately rejects, the best interest standard as the predominant, go-to ethical and legal standard of decision making for children. After an introduction to the presumption of parental authority, it characterizes and distinguishes six versions of the best interest standard according to two key dimensions related to the types of interests emphasized. Then the article brings three main criticisms against the best interest standard: (1) that it is ill-defined and inconsistently appealed to and applied, (2) that it is unreasonably demanding and narrow, and (3) that it fails to respect the family. Finally, it argues that despite the best interest standard’s potent rhetorical power, it is irreparably encumbered by too much inconsistency and confusion and should be rejected.

Keywords

Pediatric decision making Best interest standard Surrogate decision making 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Ana Iltis for her guidance and help in the preparation of this manuscript, as well as the reviewers at Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics for their helpful suggestions in the refinement of my arguments.

References

  1. 1.
    Downie, R.S., and F. Randall. 1997. Parenting and the best interest of minors. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22(3): 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klayman, J. 1985. Children’s decision strategies and their adaptation to task characteristics. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35: 179–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weithorn, L.A., and S.B. Campbell. 1982. The competency of children and adolescents to make informed treatment decisions. Child Development 53: 1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scott, E.S., N.D. Reppucci, and J. Woolard. 1995. Evaluating adolescent decision making in legal contexts. Law and Human Behavior 19: 224–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Locke, J. 1988. Two treatises of government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dare, T. 2009. Parental rights and medical decisions. Pediatric Anesthesia 19(10): 947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Developments in the law: The constitution and the family. 1980. Harvard Law Review 93(6): 1156–1383.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    In re Weberlist. 79 Misc. 2d 753 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 1974). Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clarke, A.M. 1980. The choice to refuse or withhold medical treatment. Creighton Law Review 13(3): 795–841.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Developments in the law: Medical technology and the law. 1990. Harvard Law Review 103 (7):1519–1676.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dresser, R.S. 1994. Missing persons: Legal perceptions of incompetent patients. Rutgers Law Review 46(2): 609–719.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griffith, D.B. 1991. The best interests standard: A comparison of the state’s parens patriae authority and judicial oversight in best interests determinations for children and incompetent patients. Issues in Law and Medicine 7(3): 283–338.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cruzan v. Director, MO Dep’t of Health. 497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    In re:Drabick. 245 Cal. Rptr. 840 (Ct. App. 1988).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    In re Storar. 420 N.E.2d 64 (N.Y.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 858 (1981).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Superintendent of Belchertown v. Saikewicz. 370 N.E.2d 417 (1977).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wadlington, W. 1994. Medical decision making for and by children: Tensions between parent, state and child. University of Illinois Law Review 1994(2): 311–336.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Medical Association. 2006. Surrogate decision making. In Code of medical ethics, opinion E-8.081. Chicago, IL: AMA.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1982. Making health care decisions: A report on the ethical and legal implications of informed consent in the patient-practitioner relationship. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    U.K. Parliament. 2005. Mental Capacity Act 2005. Chap. ix. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/contents.
  21. 21.
    Amnesty International. 2007. Convention on the rights of the child: Frequently asked questions. http://www.amnestyusa.org/children/crn_faq.html. Accessed February 2, 2012.
  22. 22.
    Lo, B. 2009. Resolving ethical dilemmas: A guide for clinicians. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2008. Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jonsen, A., M. Siegler, and W. Winslade. 2006. Clinical ethics: A practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. 6th ed. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Buchanan, A.E., and D.W. Brock. 1989. Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Blustein, J. 1982. Parents and children. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Drane, J.F., and J.L. Coulehan. 1995. The best interest standard: Surrogate decision making and quality of life. Journal of Clinical Ethics 6(1): 20–29.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kopelman, L.M. 2005. Rejecting the Baby Doe Rules and defending a “negative” analysis of the best interests standard. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30: 331–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goldstein, J., A. Solnit, S. Goldstein, and A. Freud. 1996. The best interests of the child: The least detrimental alternative. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ross, L.F. 1998. Children, families and healthcare decision-Making. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Diekema, D.S. 2004. Parental refusals and medical treatment: The Harm Principle as threshold for State intervention. Theoretical Medicine 25: 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hester, M. 2007. Interests and neonates: There is more to the story than we explicitly acknowledge. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28: 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maslow, A.H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50(4): 370–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rawls, J. 1971. Theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kopelman, L.M. 1997. The best interests standard as threshold, ideal and standard of reasonableness. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22(3): 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Janvier, A., I. Leblanc, and K.J. Barrington. 2008. The best interest standard is not applied for neonatal resuscitation decisions. Pediatrics 121(5): 963–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Walker, K. 1998. Jurisprudential and ethical perspectives on the best interests of children. Interchange 29(3): 287–308.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Takala, T. 2001. What is wrong with global bioethics? On the limitations of the four principles approach. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10(1): 72–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Masden v. Harrison. Eq. No. 68651 (Mass., June 12, 1957).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hart v. Brown. 289 A.2d 386 (Conn. Super. Ct., 1972).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Crouch, R.A., and C. Elliott. 1999. Moral agency and the family: The case of living related organ transplantation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8(3): 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Health Care EthicsSaint Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations