Abstract
The novelty of the pediatric patient as an active participant in the medical decision-making comes from the fact of considering him or her as a subject of rights and as an active citizen. This ethical and legal change regarding children’s rights is recent in the history of surgical ethics. The 1995 statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics highlighted the experience, perspective, and power of children (American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Bioethics. Pediatrics 95:314–317, 1995) and, in 2016, recommended the participation in decision-making commensurate with their development providing assent to care whenever possible (Katz, Webb, AAP Committee on Bioethics. Pediatrics. 38:e20161485, 2016).
Besides these new paradigms, new studies on the decision-making process show that before the legal age of majority (in most countries at 18 years), the minor may be ready to make decisions in the same way as an adult; these decisions must be respected and taken seriously since the minor needs to be recognized with an active role in the surgeon-patient relationship.
A new concept has been developed in the health-care scenario: the mature minor. This is especially important in situations of surgical disease and issues related to his/her body and health in general, where the minor should hold a major role as a decision-maker in the process of what is going to be done about him or her. The dynamic medical decision ecosystem shows a multilateral process that is shared and discussed, where three major and relevant actors coexist and participate: the health team, the pediatric patient, and the parents. This new conception of the minor as a subject of rights means that he or she must be offered participation in a progressive way and according to the developed competence to make decisions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Nitta K. Decision making. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available in https://www.britannica.com/topic/decision-making. Accessed January 12, 2018.
Grootens-Wiegers P, Hein IM, van den Broek JM, et al. Medical decision-making in children and adolescents: developmental and neuroscientific aspects. BMD Pediatr. 2017;17:120–30.
Kaplan RM, Frosch DL. Decision making in medicine and health care. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:525–56.
Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making: the pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:780–1.
Friedman Ross L. Health care decisionmaking by children. Is it in their best interest? Hast Cent Rep. 1997;27:41–5.
Starfield B, Bergner M, Ensminger M, et al. Adolescent health status measurement: development of the Child Health and Illness Profile. Pediatrics. 1993;91:430–5.
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. Young children develop in an environment of relationships. Working paper no. 1. Http://www.developingchild.net. Accessed 2 Feb 2018.
McCormick R. Les soins intensifs aux nouveau-nés handicapés. Etudes. 1982;49:493–502.
Eiser C. Children’s quality of life measures. Arch Dis Child. 1997;77:350–4.
Thompson HL, Reville MC, Price A, et al. The quality of life scale for children (QoL-C). J Child Serv. 2014;9:4–17.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx. Accessed 17 Jan 2018.
Arnold R. Human dignity and minority protection. Some reflections on a theory of minority rights. In: Elósegui M, Hermida C, editors. Racial justice, policies and courts’ legal reasoning in Europe. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol. 60. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 3–14.
Cicero. On invention (translation Hubbell HM). Loeb Classical Library 386. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1949.
Kant I. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (Wood AW, editor and translator). New Haven: Yale University Press; 2002.
Sulmasy DP. The varieties of human dignity: a logical and conceptual analysis. Med Heatlh Care Philos. 2013;16(4):937–44.
McCabe MA. Involving children and adolescents in medical decision making: developmental and clinical considerations. J Ped Psychol. 1996;21:505–16.
Buchanan A. Mental capacity, legal competence and consent to treatment. J R Soc Med. 2004;97:415–20.
Baumgarten E. The concept of competence in medical ethics. J Med Ethics. 1980;6:180–4.
Duncan RE, Sawyer SM. Respecting adolescents’ autonomy as long as they may the right choice. J Adolesce Health. 2010;47:113–4.
McDougall RJ, Notini L. Overriding parents’ medical decisions for their children: a systematic review of normative literature. J Med Ethics. 2014;40:448–52.
Friedman Ross L. Theory and practice of pediatric bioethics. Perspect Biol Med. 2015;58:267–80.
Griffith R. What is Gillick competence? Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2016;12:244–7.
Kennedy I, Grubb A. Principles of medical law. Oxford: OUP; 1998.
Gracia D, Jarabo Y, Martín N et al. Toma de decisiones en el paciente menor de edad. En: Gracia D, Júdez J (Ed.). Ética en la práctica clínica. Fundación Ciencia de la Salud. Madrid, 2004 (pp 127–160).
Suggested Literature
American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995;95:314–7.
Katz AL, Webb SA, AAP Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent in decision-making in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2016;138:e20161485.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pace, R.A., Ciruzzi, S., Ferreres, A.R. (2019). The Pediatric Patient as a Self-Individual and Decision-Maker. In: Ferreres, A. (eds) Surgical Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05963-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05964-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)