The zone of parental discretion: An ethical tool for dealing with disagreement between parents and doctors about medical treatment for a child

Abstract

Dealing with situations where parents’ views about treatment for their child are strongly opposed to doctors’ views is one major area of ethical challenge in paediatric health care. The traditional approach focuses on the child’s best interests, but this is problematic for a number of reasons. The Harm Principle test is regarded by many ethicists as more appropriate than the best interests test. Despite this, use of the best interests test for intervening in parental decisions is still very common in clinical settings and can lead to confusion. In this paper, I propose the Zone of Parental Discretion as a means of putting into practice the key ideas of the Harm Principle, in a clear, step-by-step process. The Zone of Parental Discretion provides a tool for ethical deliberation by clinicians and ethicists about all situations in which parents and doctors disagree about treatment of a child, whether parents are refusing medically recommended treatment, or requesting non-recommended treatment.

Keywords

Children Harm Principle parental refusal of treatment best interests

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Buchanan

Brock

. Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Beauchamp

Childress

. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Baines

. Death and best interests. Clin Ethics 2008; 3: 171–175.

Kopelman

Using the best interests standard in treatment decisions for young children. In: Miller

(ed). Pediatric Bioethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Salter

. Deciding for a child: a comprehensive analysis of the best interest standard. Theor Med Bioeth 2012; 33: 179–198.

Diekema

. Parental refusals of medical treatment: the Harm Principle as threshold for state intervention. Theor Med 2004; 25: 243–264.

Feinberg

. Harm to Others, New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Ross

. Children, Families, and Health Care Decision Making, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

McDougall

Notini

. Overriding parents’ medical decisions for their children: a systematic review of normative literature. J Med Ethics 2014; 40: 448–452.

10.

Gold

Hall

Gillam

. Role and function of a paediatric clinical ethics service: experiences at the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne. J Paediatr Child Health 2011; 47: 632–636.

11.

McDougall

Delany

Spriggs

. Collaboration in clinical ethics consultation: a method for achieving “balanced accountability”. Am J Bioeth 2014; 14: 47–48.

12.

Degrazia

. Value theory and the best interests standard 1. Bioethics 1995; 9: 50–61.

13.

Binik

. On the minimal risk threshold in research with children. Am J Bioeth 2014; 14: 3–12.

14.

Singh

Fanaroff

Andrews

. Resuscitation in the gray zone of viability: determining physician preferences and predicting infant outcomes. Pediatrics 2007; 120: 519–526.

15.

Leuthner

. Borderline viability: controversies in caring for the extremely premature infant. Clin Perinatol 2014; 41: 799–814.

16.

Seri

Evans

. Limits of viability: definition of the gray zone. J Perinatol 2008; 28: S4–S8.

17.

Rachels

. Active and passive euthanasia. N Engl J Med 1975; 292: 78–80.

18.

Takala

Acts and omissions. In: Ashcroft

Dawson

Draper

(eds). Principles of Health Care Ethics, 2nd ed. Wiley: Chichester, 2007.

19.

Blustein

. Doing the best for one’s child: satisficing versus optimizing parentalism. Theor Med Bioeth 2012; 33: 199–205.

20.

Kopelman

. The best interests standard as threshold, ideal, and standard of reasonableness. J Med Philos 1997; 22: 271–289.

21.

Lyons

. Children, best interests and the courts: a response to Bridgeman. Clin Ethics 2010; 5: 188–194.