Article Text
PDF
Abstract
In a recent Journal of Medical Ethics article, ‘Should Religious Beliefs Be Allowed to Stonewall a Secular Approach to Withdrawing and Withholding Treatment in Children?’, Joe Brierley, Jim Linthicum and Andy Petros argue for rapid intervention in cases of futile life-sustaining treatment. In their experience, when discussions of futility are initiated with parents, parents often appeal to religion to ‘stonewall’ attempts to disconnect their children from life support. However, I will argue that the intervention that the authors propose is culturally insensitive.
- Children
- Paediatrics
- Clinical Ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Linked Articles
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation
- In defence of genital autonomy for children
- Should religious beliefs be allowed to stonewall a secular approach to withdrawing and withholding treatment in children?
- A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors
- Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant
- Medically valid religious beliefs
- End-of-life care for older first-generation migrants: a scoping review
- Reasons doctors provide futile treatment at the end of life: a qualitative study
- Religious circumcision and the Human Rights Act