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
- Should religious beliefs be allowed to stonewall a secular approach to withdrawing and withholding treatment in children
- Medical ethics for children: applying the four principles to paediatrics
- Identifying futility in a paediatric critical care setting: a prospective observational study
- The child 's right to an open future: is the principle applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision
- When they believe in miracles
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- The child 's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- Medical futility at the end of life: the perspectives of intensive care and palliative care clinicians
- Applying the four principles
- Evaluating ethics consultation: randomised controlled trial is not the right tool