Article Text
PDF
Abstract
I argue that Brierley et al are wrong to claim that parents who request futile treatment are acting against the interests of their child. A better ethical ground for withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment is not that it is in the interests of the patient to die, but rather on grounds of the limitation of resources and the requirements of distributive justice. Put simply, not all treatment that might be in a person's interests must ethically be provided.
- Medical ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
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?
- Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice
- Bioethics: why philosophy is essential for progress
- Rights
- Dilemmas in the medical treatment of patients facing inevitable death
- When they believe in miracles
- The best interests test at the end of life on PICU: a plea for a family centred approach
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- Is it in the best interests of an intellectually disabled infant to die?
- Compassionate and innovative treatments in children: a proposal for an ethical framework