Living bioethics, theories and children's consent to heart surgery.
Philosophical aspects
bioethics and medical ethics
care for specific groups
clinical ethics
health care
health care quality
informed consent
minors
professional ethics in medicine
professional ethics in nursing
Journal
Clinical ethics
ISSN: 1477-7509
Titre abrégé: Clin Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101294546
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
medline:
29
11
2023
pubmed:
29
11
2023
entrez:
29
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This analysis is about practical living bioethics and how law, ethics and sociology understand and respect children's consent to, or refusal of, elective heart surgery. Analysis of underlying theories and influences will contrast legalistic bioethics with living bioethics. In-depth philosophical analysis compares social science traditions of positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism and applies them to bioethics and childhood, to examine how living bioethics may be encouraged or discouraged. Illustrative examples are drawn from research interviews and observations in two London paediatric cardiac units. This paper is one of a series on how the multidisciplinary cardiac team members all contribute to the complex mosaic of care when preparing and supporting families' informed consent to surgery. The living bioethics of justice, care and respect for children and their consent depends on theories and practices, contexts and relationships. These can all be undermined by unseen influences: the history of adult-centric ethics; developmental psychology theories; legal and financial pressures that require consent to be defined as an adult contract; management systems and daily routines in healthcare that can intimidate families and staff; social inequalities. Mainstream theories in the clinical ethics literature markedly differ from the living bioethics in clinical practices. We aim to contribute to raising standards of respectful paediatric bioethics and to showing the relevance of virtue and feminist ethics, childhood studies and children's rights.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
This analysis is about practical living bioethics and how law, ethics and sociology understand and respect children's consent to, or refusal of, elective heart surgery. Analysis of underlying theories and influences will contrast legalistic bioethics with living bioethics. In-depth philosophical analysis compares social science traditions of positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism and applies them to bioethics and childhood, to examine how living bioethics may be encouraged or discouraged. Illustrative examples are drawn from research interviews and observations in two London paediatric cardiac units. This paper is one of a series on how the multidisciplinary cardiac team members all contribute to the complex mosaic of care when preparing and supporting families' informed consent to surgery.
Results
UNASSIGNED
The living bioethics of justice, care and respect for children and their consent depends on theories and practices, contexts and relationships. These can all be undermined by unseen influences: the history of adult-centric ethics; developmental psychology theories; legal and financial pressures that require consent to be defined as an adult contract; management systems and daily routines in healthcare that can intimidate families and staff; social inequalities. Mainstream theories in the clinical ethics literature markedly differ from the living bioethics in clinical practices.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
We aim to contribute to raising standards of respectful paediatric bioethics and to showing the relevance of virtue and feminist ethics, childhood studies and children's rights.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38024810
doi: 10.1177/14777509221091086
pii: 10.1177_14777509221091086
pmc: PMC10654030
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
418-426Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Nurs Inq. 2015 Jun;22(2):157-67
pubmed: 25053126
Clin Ethics. 2022 Sep;17(3):272-281
pubmed: 35967459
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015 Apr;24(2):154-64
pubmed: 25719351
Acad Pediatr. 2015 Nov-Dec;15(6):573-83
pubmed: 25983006
Nurs Ethics. 2020 Feb;27(1):230-246
pubmed: 30975025
Arch Dis Child. 2019 Apr;104(4):328-332
pubmed: 30154178
Bioethics. 2004 Apr;18(2):120-143
pubmed: 15146853