Law Commons^™

Medical Decision Making By And On Behalf Of Adolescents: Reconsidering First Principles, B. Jessie Hill

Faculty Publications

The school nurse cannot give your teenage daughter an aspirin for her headache without your permission, but that same daughter can get an abortion without even informing you. Or can she? The obligations on medical personnel providing care to adolescents are famously indeterminate.

Two common-law presumptions have long lurked in the background, but, far from elucidating matters, those presumptions have contributed to the state of confusion. The first presumption is that, absent any special rule, children lack the legal authority to consent to medical treatment on their own. A parallel and corresponding presumption is that parents have a legal entitlement …

Non-Beneficial Pediatric Research And The Best Interest Standard: A Reconciliation, Paul J. Litton

Faculty Publications

Federal efforts beginning in the 1990's have successfully increased pediatric research to improve medical care for all children. Since 1997, the FDA has requested 800 pediatric studies involving 45,000 children. Much of this research is "non-beneficial"; that is, it exposes pediatric subjects to risk even though these children will not benefit from participating in the research. Non-beneficial pediatric research (NBPR) seems, by definition, contrary to the best interests of pediatric subjects, which is why one state supreme court has essentially prohibited it. It also appears that the only plausible rationale for this research is utilitarian, as it risks some children …

Harming Future Persons: Obligations To The Children Of Reproductive Technology, Philip G. Peters Jr.

Faculty Publications

Two paradigms dominate contemporary ethical and legal debate about the risks posed to children who owe their lives to reproductive technology. One asks whether the children have lives so tragic that life itself is harmful. The other approach asks whether children so conceived are likely to enjoy a minimally decent existence. Although the two approaches have quite different analytic foundations, they share one crucial trait. Each concludes that children who owe their lives to reproductive technology are harmed only when that technology causes genuinely catastrophic injuries.Because these conventional paradigms define harmful conduct exclusively by reference to the magnitude of the …