The practice of ethical medicine requires that the clinician offers interventions that are likely to help (beneficence), avoid interventions that are likely to harm (nonmaleficence), and allow for autonomous decision making. Our determination of what is in the best interest of the patient is dependent on the state of medical evidence at the time. However, as evidence evolves, the balance of beneficence and nonmaleficence may change, even to the extent of a complete reversal. In this article, I explore the issues of autonomy, particularly parental autonomy for a child, in a world in which the evidence is always changing.
RhodesRHolzmanIR. The not unreasonable standard for assessment of surrogates and surrogate decisions. Theor Med Bioeth. 2004;25:367–385.
2.
MinneciPCSulkowskiJPNacionKM. Feasibility of a nonoperative management strategy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219:272–279.
3.
Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the women’s health initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:321–333.
4.
MukherjeeDNissenSETopolEJ. Risk of cardiovascular events associated with selective cox-2 inhibitors. JAMA. 2001;286:954–959.
5.
Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:716–726.
6.
MoyerVA.Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120–134.
7.
O’RourkeKD. A Primer for Health Care Ethics: Essays for a Pluralistic Society. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2000.
8.
NoritzG. To dream, perchance to sleep. Med Health R I. 1999;82:289–290.
