An Agonizing Choice: Autonomy vs. Beneficence in the Case of Cassandra C.
Type of Submission
Poster
Keywords
Ethics, bioethics, medicine, pediatric oncology, beneficence, autonomy, mature minor
Abstract
In today’s world of progressive medicine, patient autonomy has seemingly surpassed all other values as the standard of ethical practice. Although physicians inform patients to the best of their ability, most patients have the right to accept or refuse almost any prescribed treatment, regardless of the physician’s judgment of the situation.
Although this trend can sometimes prove beneficial, it raises many ethical questions, and it complicates a physician’s responsibilities. Primarily, the trend toward complete patient autonomy may conflict with the physician’s commitment to beneficence in practice.
The situation minutely shifts when underage patients are involved. The recent emphasis on patient autonomy has caused some minors to assert their perceived rights in ways many physicians consider life threatening. If a physician believes a minor patient will truly be harmed if he refuses treatment, the physician may go against the patient’s will and force the patient to pursue treatment.
This paper discusses the rights of minors to make cancer treatment decisions for themselves. As a point of reference, I discuss the case of Cassandra C., a minor who was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma but elected not to pursue treatment. Cassandra was forced by the court to undergo treatment, against the wishes of both Cassandra and her mother. After several weeks of forced treatment, Cassandra went into remission.
Within this paper, I discuss the differences between adolescent and adult brains, analyzing how more advanced neural development can impact a person’s decision-making capacities.
I also evaluate the concept of beneficence, especially as laid out in the Hippocratic Oath. In this evaluation, I appraise how a minor patient’s desire for autonomy might interact with a physician’s responsibility to provide for the patient’s well-being.
I argue that although mature minors have a right to give input on what treatment they would prefer, doctors ultimately have a duty to ensure beneficence of treatment, especially for patients who are under the legal age of consent.
Faculty Sponsor or Advisor’s Name
Dr. Dennis Sullivan
Campus Venue
Stevens Student Center
Location
Cedarville, OH
Start Date
4-1-2015 11:00 AM
End Date
4-2015 2:00 PM
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
An Agonizing Choice: Autonomy vs. Beneficence in the Case of Cassandra C.
Cedarville, OH
In today’s world of progressive medicine, patient autonomy has seemingly surpassed all other values as the standard of ethical practice. Although physicians inform patients to the best of their ability, most patients have the right to accept or refuse almost any prescribed treatment, regardless of the physician’s judgment of the situation.
Although this trend can sometimes prove beneficial, it raises many ethical questions, and it complicates a physician’s responsibilities. Primarily, the trend toward complete patient autonomy may conflict with the physician’s commitment to beneficence in practice.
The situation minutely shifts when underage patients are involved. The recent emphasis on patient autonomy has caused some minors to assert their perceived rights in ways many physicians consider life threatening. If a physician believes a minor patient will truly be harmed if he refuses treatment, the physician may go against the patient’s will and force the patient to pursue treatment.
This paper discusses the rights of minors to make cancer treatment decisions for themselves. As a point of reference, I discuss the case of Cassandra C., a minor who was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma but elected not to pursue treatment. Cassandra was forced by the court to undergo treatment, against the wishes of both Cassandra and her mother. After several weeks of forced treatment, Cassandra went into remission.
Within this paper, I discuss the differences between adolescent and adult brains, analyzing how more advanced neural development can impact a person’s decision-making capacities.
I also evaluate the concept of beneficence, especially as laid out in the Hippocratic Oath. In this evaluation, I appraise how a minor patient’s desire for autonomy might interact with a physician’s responsibility to provide for the patient’s well-being.
I argue that although mature minors have a right to give input on what treatment they would prefer, doctors ultimately have a duty to ensure beneficence of treatment, especially for patients who are under the legal age of consent.
