Abstract
The Best Interests Standard is a difficult and controversial concept, and its implementation in clinical practice faces substantial concerns from conceptual and linguistic points of view.
By analyzing the underlying premises I conclude in a first step that the often criticized inconsistencies is not as much a problem of the concept of best interests itself but rather an inevitable consequence of coherent tensions between different values and perspectives in clinical practice. Nevertheless by pretending normative statements without the argumentative groundwork the term of “best interests” is prone to become empty or rhetorical. For using “best interests” as a meaningful concept and to respect and to consider the sometimes conflicting needs, values and perspectives in clinical practice I propose a constitutional matrix with three different discourses and four stakeholders. Arguing with the concept of “best interests” therefore implies to understand underlying ideologies (1), to delineate a particular area of optimum care and choice (2), and to learn about established or needed thresholds (3). Furthermore these three discourses are informed, each in a particular manner, by the views of expert (1), parents (2), the child (3) and the knowledge of a prospective future person (4). If only one of these considerations is missing we either should conceive the concept of “best interests” as a mandate to complete these considerations or refrain from using it in our argumentation. As a consequence the best interests is not perceived as a particular principle or philosophical argument but as a complex claim to assess and to implement multifaceted needs, aims, conditions and arguments concerning a child.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Feinberg’s approach fails to show why the open future argument is applicable on children (e.g. desires and whishes in childhood should be sacrificed for the opportunities of an adult person in her 30s) but not on adults (e.g. desires and whishes of a person in her 20s should be sacrificed for the opportunities of an adult person in her 60s).
References
Ainsworth, F., & Hansen, P. (2011). The experience of parents of children in care: The human rights issue. Child & Youth Services, 32(1), 9–18.
Alderson, P. (1992). In the genes or in the stars? Children’s competence to consent. Journal of Medical Ethics, 18(3), 119–124.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2003). Family pediatrics: Report of the task force on the family. Pediatrics, 111(6), 1541–1571.
Armstrong, K., Ryan, C. A., Hawkes, C. P., Janvier, A., & Dempsey, E. M. (2011). Life and death decisions for incompetent patients: determining best interests – The Irish perspective. Acta Paediatrica, 100(4), 519–523.
Bricher, G. (2000). Children in the hospital: Issues of power and vulnerability. Pediatric Nursing, 26(3), 277–282.
Buchanan, A. E., & Brock, D. W. (1989). Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, W. (2002). Family-focused pediatrics: A primary care family systems approach to psychosocial problems. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health Care, 32(8), 260–305.
Committee on Bioethics. (2007). Professionalism in pediatrics: Statement of principles. Pediatrics, 120(4), 895–897.
Committee on Hospital Care and Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care. (2012). Patient- and family-centered care and the pediatrician’s role. Pediatrics, 129(2), 394–404.
Committee on the Rights of Children. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Diekema, D. (2004). Parental refusals of medical treatment: The harm principle as threshold for state intervention. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 25(4), 243–264.
Diekema, D. S. (2011). Revisiting the best interest standard: Uses and misuses. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 22(2), 128–133.
Downie, R. S., & Randall, F. (1997). Parenting and the best interests of minors. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 22(3), 219–231.
Feinberg, J. (1980). The child’s right to an open future. In W. Aiken & H. Lafollette (Eds.), Whose child? Children’s rights, parental authority, and state power (pp. 76–97). Totowa: Rowman & Littlefield.
Green, M., & Solnit, A. J. (1964). Reactions to the threatened loss of a child: a vulnerable child syndrome. Pediatric management of the dying child. Pediatrics, 34, 58–66.
Hallström, I., & Elander, G. (2005). Decision making in paediatric care: An overview with reference to nursing care. Nursing Ethics, 12(3), 223–238.
Hinds, P. S., Oakes, L. L., Hicks, J., Powell, B., Srivastava, D. K., Spunt, S. L., Harper, J., Baker, J. N., West, N. K., & Furman, W. L. (2009). “Trying to be a good parent” as defined by interviews with parents who made phase I, terminal care, and resuscitation decisions for their children. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27(35), 5979–5985.
Holm, S., & Edgar, A. (2008). Best interest: A philosophical critique. Health Care Analysis, 16(3), 197–207.
Köhler, B., Kleinemeier, E., Lux, A., Hiort, O., Grüters, A., & Thyen, U. (2012). Satisfaction with genital surgery and sexual life of adults with XY disorders of sex development: Results from the German clinical evaluation study. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 97(2), 577–588.
Kopelman, L. M. (1997). The best-interests standard as threshold, ideal, and standard of reasonableness. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 22(3), 271–289.
Lansdown, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of the child. Florence: UNICEF.
Partridge, B. C. (2010). Adolescent psychological development, parenting styles, and pediatric decision making. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 35(5), 518–525.
Salter, E. K. (2012). Deciding for a child: A comprehensive analysis of the best interest standard. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 33(3), 179–198.
Streuli, J. C. (2011). Ethical Decision Making in Pediatrics – An empirical study on the relationship between “Kindeswohl” and “Best interests” and a proposal to their implementation [in German]. Unpublished, School of Social Work, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland.
Streuli, J. C., Michel, M., & Vayena, E. (2011). Children’s rights in pediatrics. European Journal of Pediatrics, 170(1), 9–14.
Streuli, J. C., Köhler, B., Werner-Rosen, K., & Mitchell, C. (2012). DSD and professionalism from a multilateral view: Supplementing the consensus statement on the basis of a qualitative survey. Advances in Urology, 2012, 1–8.
Streuli, J. C., Vayena, E., Cavicchia-Balmer, Y., & Huber, J. (2013). Shaping parents: impact of contrasting professional counseling on parents’ decision making for children with disorders of sex development. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10(8), 1953–1960.
Streuli, J. C., Staubli, G., Pfändler-Poletti, M., Baumann-Hölzle, R., & Ersch, J. (2014). Five-year experience of clinical ethics consultations in a pediatric teaching hospital. European Journal of Pediatrics, 173(5), 629–636.
Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational process and the facilitative environment. New York: International University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Streuli, J.C. (2015). The Concept of Best Interests in Clinical Practice. In: Bagattini, A., Macleod, C. (eds) The Nature of Children's Well-Being. Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9252-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9252-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9251-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9252-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)