4 - Childhood
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 June 2011
Summary
The experience of children with disability in the clinical setting is as varied as any other human experience. Many children with disabilities lead rich, full lives in which they attend school, play with friends, participate on sports teams, and come into contact with physicians for little other than routine well-child care visits. Other children with disabilities, particularly developmental disabilities, may be physically healthy but limited in their capacity for mental and social development. Still others may face disability-related or other health problems that bring them into regular contact with the health care system. Like all parents, parents of children with disabilities are the primary decision makers for their children. They make decisions about whether, when, and how to treat illness or use technology to correct or improve functionality. They also make decisions about whether, when, and how to manage the particular physical manifestations or social needs resulting from disability. As with most medical decision making for children, the process by which parents make medical decisions for children with disabilities is mostly unremarkable. The parents consult with the child's doctor, weigh the risk and benefits of medically reasonable alternatives, and then make the decision that is, in their estimation, in the best interest of their child.
The deference given parental decisions in the health care setting is more than a matter of convenience or custom. A parent's right to make medical decisions for his or her child is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Bioethics and DisabilityToward a Disability-Conscious Bioethics, pp. 137 - 193Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011
References
& , Ethical Issues in Cochlear Implant Surgery: An Exploration into Disease, Disability, and the Best Interests of the Child, 7 Kennedy Inst. Ethics J., Sept. 1997, at 231, 234Google ScholarPubMed
, Ethnicity, Ethics, and the Deaf-World, 10 J. Deaf Stud. & Deaf Educ., Summer 2005, at 291, 299–300CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, Do You Hear the People Sing? Balancing Parental Authority and a Child's Right to Thrive: The Cochlear Implant Debate, 5 J. Health & Biomed. L. 309, 317–18 (2009)Google Scholar
, et al., Deaf is Dandy: Contrasting the Deaf and Hearing Cultures, 13 Intercultural Comm. Stud. 111 (2004)Google Scholar
, A Neglected Culture: How Cochlear Implants Affect Deaf Children's Self-Esteem, 6 Dialogues@ru79, 87 (2007), http://dialogues.rutgers.edu/vol_06/essays/documents/gao.pdfGoogle Scholar
, Ethics and Culture in the Deaf Community Response to Cochlear Implants, 21 Seminars Hearing75 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, What Does Culture Have to Do with the Education of Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing?, inLiteracy And Deaf People: Cultural And Contextual Perspectives 47 (Brenda Jo Brueggemann ed., Gallaudet University Press 2004)Google Scholar
, Defending Deaf Culture: The Case of Cochlear Implants, 13 J. Pol. Phil., May 2005, at 135Google Scholar
, Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language: Hereditary Deafness on Martha's Vineyard (Harvard University Press 1985)Google Scholar
, Michael Schwartz: Multiple Communication Methods Assist Deaf Law Professor in and Outside of the Classroom, The Daily Orange, Mar. 7, 2010, http://www.dailyorange.com/2.8691/michael-schwartz-multiple-communication-methods-assist-deaf-law-professor-in-and-outside-of-the-classroom-1.1237578Google Scholar
& , Self-Esteem Enhancement in Deaf and Hearing Women: Success Stories, 146 Am. Annals Deaf, Oct. 2001, at 348, 352–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
et al., Child Assent and Parental Permission in Pediatric Research, 24 Theoretical Med. & Bioethics, March 2003, at 131–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, Parental Refusals of Medical Treatment: The Harm Principle as Threshold for State Intervention, 25 Theoretical Med. & Bioethics, July 2004, at 243, 244CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, Non-Therapeutic Pediatric Interventions, inThe Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics 127, 128 ( & , eds., Cambridge University Press 2008)Google Scholar
, Autonomy, the Good Life and Controversial Choices, inThe Blackwell Guide to Medical Ethics 17–37 ( et al. eds., Oxford: Blackwell Publishing 2007)Google Scholar
, Genetic Dilemmas and the Child's Right to an Open Future, 28 Rutgers L. J. 549 (1997)Google ScholarPubMed
, The Child's Right to an Open Future, inWilliam Aiken, Whose Child? Children's Rights, Parental Authority, and State Power124, 125 (1980)Google Scholar
& , Are Juveniles Still ‘Persons’ Under the United States Constitution? A New Theory of Children's Constitutional Rights, 5 Int'l J. Child. Rts. 319 (1997) (emphasizing the difference between having a right and enjoying it)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, The Child's Right to an Open Future: Yoder and Beyond, 26 Cap. U. L. Rev. 93, 94 (1997)Google Scholar
, Cochlear Implants and the Claims of Culture? A Response to Lane and Grodin, 7 Kennedy Inst. Ethics J., Sept. 1997, at 253–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, Reconsidering Cochlear Implants: The Lessons of Martha's Vineyard, 16 Bioethics134 (2002)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, Growth Attenuation, Parental Choice, and the Rights of Disabled Children: Lessons from the Ashley X Case, 8 Hous. J. Health L. & Pol'y 207 (2008) (copyright © Alicia R. Ouellette)Google Scholar
& , Attenuating Growth in Children with Profound Developmental Disability: A New Approach to an Old Dilemma, 160 Archives Pediatric & Adolescent Med. 1013, 1014 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment (University of California Press 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handbook of Disability Studies 351–514 ( et al. eds., Sage Publications, Inc. 2001) (documenting the experience of disability)
, Make Them Go Away: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve, and the Case Against Disability Rights (The Advocado Press, Inc. 2003)Google Scholar
, No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement12–40 (Three Rivers Press 1993) (classifying the treatment received by people with disabilities as either “Tiny Tims” or “Super Crips”)Google Scholar
, Protest from a Bad Cripple – Ashley Unlawfully Sterilized, Counterpunch, May 26, 2007, available athttp://counterpunch.org/peace 05262007.htmlGoogle Scholar
, et al., Growth-Attenuation Therapy: Principles for Practice, 123 Pediatrics, June 2009, at 1556CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& , Ashley Revisited: A Response to the Critics, 10 Am. J. Bioethics30 (2010)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, The Ashley Case: The Public Response and Policy Implications, 37 Hastings Center Rep., Sept.–Oct. 2007, at 12–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Growth Attenuation by Commission and Omission May Be Ethically Justifiable in Children with Profound Disabilities, 161 Archives Pediatrics & Adolescent Med., Apr. 2007, at 418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.