Overview
****PLEASE DO NOT USE GENERATIVE AI SOFTWARE. IT IS CHECKED THOROUGHLY****ASSIGNMent: Please respond to the 2 classmate’s discussion posts pertaining to the statement below:
Offer your opinion, drawing upon the case of Marie and any other examples with which you might be familiar. Support your opinion with cogent logic and adequate detail. Discuss if you think the current legal issues should be dealt with and why or why not. Please make sure you defend your answer using empirical research.
Rahlyn Green:
I believe that children should have a say in their end-of-life medical decisions once they reach a certain level of maturity. While younger children may not fully understand death, older children and those who are seriously ill often develop a clear understanding of their condition and should not be completely excluded from decisions that affect them. Ignoring their perspective can make an already difficult situation even more stressful.
The case of Marie highlights why this is important. Marie was experiencing severe pain but was denied medication because adults believed it would “spoil” her. This decision ignored her lived experience and shows how adults can underestimate children. Research shows that terminally ill children often develop a step-by-step awareness of their illness, including understanding that treatments may fail and that they could die (Wass, 2002). This suggests that children are capable of understanding more than adults assume, especially when they are directly experiencing the illness.
In addition, avoiding conversations about death can actually increase fear. The “rule of silence” often leaves children confused and anxious, while open communication helps them cope better (Wass, 2002). Bluebond-Langner (1978) found that children with serious illnesses become highly aware of their treatments and surroundings, showing that they actively process what is happening to them. Similarly, Weithorn and Campbell (1982) found that adolescents can make medical decisions at levels similar to adults, which supports the idea that maturity matters more than age.
Because of this, I believe current laws should change. However, children should not have full control. Instead, laws should emphasize “assent,” where children who demonstrate understanding are included in decision-making. Doctors could assess maturity and take the child’s opinions seriously, even if parents make the final decision. Overall, children like Marie deserve to be heard, and including them in decisions can improve both fairness and emotional outcomes. References:
Bluebond-Langner, M. (1978). The private worlds of dying children. Princeton University Press.
Wass, H. (2002). Death, dying, and bereavement in childhood and adolescence. Springer Publishing Company.
Weithorn, L. A., & Campbell, S. B. (1982). The competency of children and adolescents to make informed treatment decisions. Child Development, 53(6), 1589–1598.
John Jolly:
The case of Marie is very concerning both ethically and legally when it comes to the question of whether a child has a say in their own medical care particularly in the end-of-life cases. I feel that much more needs to be done by the current legal system to consider the emotional and cognitive abilities of children, and those who are very ill in particular. Chapter 10 demonstrates that children can grow up to gain a realistic knowledge of their condition, despite their young age. According to studies conducted by Bluebond-Langner, terminally ill children usually develop a great level of awareness about their treatments, symptoms, and prognosis. This is a direct confrontation of that belief that children cannot make any meaningful contribution in the decision making process. The case of Marie is a particularly worrying scenario since she was quibbled pain drugs on the notion that it would spoil her, which is an adult-centered idea and not a patient-centered one. Ethically, this is against the principle of beneficence since her suffering was not as reduced as there were opportunities to do so. There is also empirical research which is discussed in the chapter and this reveals that open communication and participation of children in their care proves useful as it lowers their anxiety and makes them better copers. In such cases, children not involved might absorb fear and bewilderment that can manifest later on in their psychology. Children are still legally regarded as a group of incompetent people so decisions remain solely to parents or guardians.This is intended to safeguard them; however, it can also be used to quiet down children who can express preferences. Klugman (2005) states that even when children who exhibit an understanding are not obligated by law, they should be at least given an opportunity to give an assent. I want to agree with this point of view since it is a reasonable way to protect the child and not to neglect his growing up autonomy. It was also shown that family communication and inclusion positively impact the outcomes of dying and bereaved children, which indicates that the involvement is not only ethical but also helpful. In general, I think that the legal standards must be reviewed with the purpose to become more accurate because of the cognitive and emotional maturation of children. It is not imparting on children the full decision making capability but it is about acknowledging their capability of comprehending and taking part in discourses regarding their own care. Such situations as that of Marie demonstrate that one should not hear a child out, or unwarranted pain and moral decline will occur. The revision of legal frameworks and the inclusion of the view of children based on the psychological and clinical studies would establish a more sensible and humanistic approach to the treatment of children.