Oncofertility pp 429-445 | Cite as

Whose Future Is It? Ethical Family Decision Making About Daughters’ Treatment in the Oncofertility Context

Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 156)


In cases of fertility-threatening cancer treatments, the choice whether or not to undergo fertility preservation treatment before cancer treatment begins represents a high-stakes, time-sensitive, emotionally charged, nested decision [1]. The choice is life altering and, although presumably a discrete decision, the fertility preservation decision serves as an outcome of a very recent challenging decision to pursue fertility-threatening cancer treatments. Patients and their family members will experience the dual impact of these linked treatment-related decisions for years to come. For many patients, family members play significant roles in treatment-related decision making. However, if the patient has not reached the age of legal majority, family members play additional roles in the decision-making processes.


Cancer Survivor Healthcare Provider Fertility Preservation Pediatric Cancer Family Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported by the Oncofertility Consortium NIH 8UL1DE019587, 5RL1HD058296. Dr. Clayman is supported by Award Number K12HD055884 from NICHD.


  1. 1.
    Galvin KM. Deliberation in a contested medical context: developing a framework to aid family decision making when an adolescent son faces fertility-threatening cancer treatment. Alta Argument Conference. Vol. 16. Alta: Utah 2009:98–105.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Minuchin S. Family kaleidoscope. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Galvin KM, Dickson FC, Marrow SR. Systems theory: patterns and (W)holes in family communication. In: Braithwaite D, Baxter L, Eds. Engaging theories in family communication: multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006:309–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levetown M. Communicating with children and families: from everyday interactions to skill in conveying distressing information. Pediatrics. 2008; 121(5):e1441–e60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCabe MA. Involving children and adolescents in medical decision making: developmental and clinical considerations. J Pediatr Psychol. 1996; 21(4):505–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roter D. The enduring and evolving nature of the patient-physician relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2000; 39(1):5–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Committee on Bioethics, American Academy of Pediatrics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995; 95(2):314–7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCabe MA, Rushton CH, Glover J, Murray MG, Leikin S. Implications of the Patient Self-Determination Act: guidelines for involving adolescents in medical decision making. J Adolesc Health. 1996; 19(5):319–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 60(3):301–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997; 44(5):681–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R. Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. Br J Gen Pract. 2000; 50(460):892–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fallat ME, Hutter J. Preservation of fertility in pediatric and adolescent patients with cancer. Pediatrics. 2008; 121(5):e1461–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Whitney SN, Ethier AM, Fruge E, Berg S, McCullough LB, Hockenberry M. Decision making in pediatric oncology: who should take the lead? The decisional priority in pediatric oncology model. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(1):160–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Foreman DM. The family rule: a framework for obtaining ethical consent for medical interventions from children. J Med Ethics. 1999; 25(6):491–6, discussion 497–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ladd RE, Forman EN. Adolescent decision-making: giving weight to age-specific values. Theor Med. 1995; 16(4):333–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oppenheim D, Brugieres L, Corradini N, Vivant F, Hartmann O. An ethics dilemma: when parents and doctors disagree on the best treatment for the child. Bull Cancer. 2004; 91(9):735–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Public Law #101-508 && 4206; 4751 (codified at 42 USC &&1395 cc, 1369a(a))1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson RA, Weddell A, Spoudeas HA, et al. Do doctors discuss fertility issues before they treat young patients with cancer? Hum Reprod. 2008; 23(10):2246–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simon C, Eder M, Raiz P, Zyzanski S, Pentz R, Kodish ED. Informed consent for pediatric leukemia research: clinician perspectives. Cancer. 2001; 92(3):691–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fisher-Jeffes L, Barton C, Finlay F. Clinicians’ knowledge of informed consent. J Med Ethics. 2007; 33(3):181–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Joffe S, Fernandez CV, Pentz RD, et al. Involving children with cancer in decision-making about research participation. J Pediatr. 2006; 149(6):862–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Institute of Medicine Committee on Clinical Research Involving Children. Ethical conduct of clinical research involving children. Washington: National Academies Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Galvin KM, Diversity’s impact on defining the family. In: Turner L, West R, Eds. The family communication source book. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006:3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kreider RM. Adopted children and stepchildren: 2000 (C2KBR-30). Census 2000 Special Reports. 2003. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-6.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2005.
  25. 25.
    Simmons T, O’Neill G Households and families: 2000 (C2KVR/01-8). Census 2000 brief. 2001. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/cd2br01-8.pdf growing number of cases, children are raised in households headed by. Accessed December 18, 2004.
  26. 26.
    Mallon GP. Gay men choosing parenthood. New York: Columbia University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Backhus LE, Zoloth L. Today’s research, tomorrows cures: the ethical implications of oncofertility. In: Woodruff TK, Snyder KA, Eds. Oncofertility. Vol. 138. New York: Springer; 2007:163–79.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clayman ML, Galvin KM, Arntson P, Cameron K.A., Harper M. Use of theory to develop a decision aid for parents whose daughters face cancer-related threats to fertility. Paper presented at International Shared Decision Making Conference Boston, June 2009.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmidt EB. The parental obligation to expand a child’s range of open futures when making genetic trait selections for their child. Bioethics. 2007; 21(4):191–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hardwig J. What about the family? Hastings Cent Rep. 1990; 20:5–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davis DS. The parental investment factor and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Cent Rep. 2009; 39(2):24–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Health literacy: report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. JAMA. 1999; 281(6):552–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(17):1216–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morris NS, MacLean CD, Littenberg B. Literacy and health outcomes: a cross-sectional study in 1002 adults with diabetes. BMC Fam Pract. 2006; 7:49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Murphy-Knoll L. Low health literacy puts patients at risk: the Joint Commission proposes solutions to national problem. J Nurs Care Qual. 2007; 22(3):205–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. Statistical illiteracy undermines informed shared decision making. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2008; 102(7):411–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gigerenzer G. Making sense of health statistics. Bull World Health Organ. 2009; 87(8):567.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G. Medicine. Communicating statistical information. Science. 2000; 290(5500):2261–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Crawshaw M, Sloper P. A qualitative study of the experiences of teenagers and young adults when faced with possible or actual fertility impairment following cancer treatment. 2006. http://york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/fertility.pdf. Accessed December 28, 2006.
  40. 40.
    Runeson I, Enskar K, Elander G, Hermeren G. Professionals’ perceptions of children’s participation in decision making in healthcare. J Clin Nurs. 2001; 10(1):70–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parens E. Respecting children with disabilities – and their parents. Hastings Cent Rep. 2009; 39(1):22–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hutchinson MK. The influence of sexual risk communication between parents and daughters on sexual risk behaviors. Fam Relat. 2002; 51:238–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jaccard J, Dittust P, Gordon V. Parent-adolescent communication about premarital sex: factors associated with the extent of communication. J Adolesc Res. 2000; 15:187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Maddock J. Healthy family sexuality: positive principles for educators and clinicians. Fam Relat. 1989; 38:130–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Warren C. Communicating about sex with parents and partners. In: Galvin KM, Cooper PJ, Eds. Making connections: readings in relational communication. 4th edn. Los Angeles: Roxbury; 2006:319–22.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zoloth L, Backhus L, Woodruff T. Waiting to be born: the ethical implications of the generation of “NUBorn” and “NUAge” mice from pre-pubertal ovarian tissue. Am J Bioeth. 2008; 8(6):21–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Balen A., Glaser A. Health conditions and treatments affecting fertility in childhood and teenage years. In: Balen R, Crawshaw M, Eds. Sexuality and fertility issues in ill health and disability. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2006:67–84.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Imber-Black E. The secret life of families. New York: Bantam Books; 1998.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kinahan KE, Sharp LK, Arntson P, Galvin K, Grill L, Didwania A. Adult survivors of childhood cancer and their parents: experiences with survivorship and long-term follow-up. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2008; 30(9):651–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Featherstone K, Atkinson P, Bharadwaj A, Clarke A. Risky relations: family, kinship, and the new genetics. New York: Berg Publishers; 2006.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nieman CL, Kinahan KE, Yount SE, et al. Fertility preservation and adolescent cancer patients: lessons from adult survivors of childhood cancer and their parents. In: Woodruff TK, Snyder KA, Eds. Oncofertility. Vol. 138. New York: Springer; 2007:201–17.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication StudiesNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Division of General Internal MedicineRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations