Health Care Analysis 22 (3):203-222 (2014)

Abstract
In the western healthcare, shared decision making has become the orthodox approach to making healthcare choices as a way of promoting patient autonomy. Despite the fact that the autonomy paradigm is poorly suited to paediatric decision making, such an approach is enshrined in English common law. When reaching moral decisions, for instance when it is unclear whether treatment or non-treatment will serve a child’s best interests, shared decision making is particularly questionable because agreement does not ensure moral validity. With reference to current common law and focusing on intensive care practice, this paper investigates what claims shared decision making may have to legitimacy in a paediatric intensive care setting. Drawing on key texts, I suggest these identify advantages to parents and clinicians but not to the child who is the subject of the decision. Without evidence that shared decision making increases the quality of the decision that is being made, it appears that a focus on the shared nature of a decision does not cohere with the principle that the best interests of the child should remain paramount. In the face of significant pressures toward the displacement of the child’s interests in a shared decision, advantages of a shared decision to decisional quality require elucidation. Although a number of arguments of this nature may have potential, should no such advantages be demonstrable we have cause to revise our commitment to either shared decision making or the paramountcy of the child in these circumstances.
Keywords Best interests  Children  Compromise  Ethics  Intensive care  Shared decision making
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10728-013-0267-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,797
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The View From Nowhere.Thomas Nagel - 1986 - Oxford University Press.
Political Liberalism.J. Rawls - 1995 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 57 (3):596-598.
The View From Nowhere.Thomas Nagel - 1986 - Behaviorism 15 (1):73-82.
The View from Nowhere.Thomas Nagel - 1986 - Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 92 (2):280-281.

View all 49 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Free Choice and Patient Best Interests.Emma Bullock - 2016 - Health Care Analysis 24 (4):374-392.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Shared Decision-Making, Gender and New Technologies.Kristin Zeiler - 2007 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10 (3):279-287.
Shared Decision-Making and Patient Autonomy.Lars Sandman & Christian Munthe - 2009 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (4):289-310.
The Concept of Negotiation in Shared Decision Making.Lars Sandman - 2009 - Health Care Analysis 17 (3):236-243.
Prudent Evidence‐Fettered Shared Decision Making.Elizabeth Libby Bogdan-Lovis & Margaret Holmes-Rovner - 2010 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2):376-381.
Beyond Informed Consent - Part II.Kate Jones - 2007 - Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin 13 (2):6.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-11-23

Total views
35 ( #298,205 of 2,425,667 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #351,462 of 2,425,667 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes