Article Text
Clinical ethics
Viewpoint
Cultural sensitivity in paediatrics
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
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
- Futile life-sustaining treatment in the intensive care unit–nurse and physician experiences: meta-synthesis
- 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
- Traditional male circumcision and the risk for HIV transmission among men: a systematic review
- End-of-life care for older first-generation migrants: a scoping review