The DOI matches its Crossref record.
BALANCING LIBERATION AND PROTECTION: A MODERATE APPROACH TO ADOLESCENT HEALTH CARE DECISION-MAKING
Abstract
In this paper I examine the debate between 'protectionists' and 'liberationists' concerning the appropriate role of minors in decision-making about their health care, focusing particularly on disagreements between the two sides regarding adolescents. Protectionists advocate a more traditional, paternalistic approach in which minors have relatively little input into the healthcare decision-making process, and decisions are made for them by parents or other adults, guided by a commitment to the patient's best interests. Liberationists, on the other hand, argue in favour of expanded participation by minors in treatment decisions, and decision-making authority for at least some adolescents. My examination of the debate includes discussion of liberationist shifts that have taken place in the medical community as well as in legal policy and practice, and consideration of recent research on adolescent development. In the final section of the paper, I propose a moderate position that addresses both liberationist and protectionist concerns.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Differences in decision-making between adolescents and adults have been found in the ability to act or think responsible, the ability to restrain impulsiveness, and the ability to place a given decision in a larger temporal context [16].”
From Why is it hard to make progress in assessing children's decision-making competence? (2015) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“Various authors argue that early adolescents (10 to 14) are more susceptible to peer influences than at any other age [16], which may hinder their ability to make thoughtful decisions [15].”
From Why is it hard to make progress in assessing children's decision-making competence? (2015) · cites this paper as [16]
Citations
Cited by
Hein, I. M., de Vries, M. C., Troost, P. W., Meynen, G., van Goudoever, J. B., & Lindauer, R. (2015) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0067-z · Cited by 222
“Differences between children and adults regarding decision-making competence have been found in the ability to restrain impulsivity and in the ability to place a given decision in a larger temporal context [19].”
BackgroundWhy is it hard to make progress in assessing children's decision-making competence?
Hein, I. M., Troost, P. W., Broersma, A., de Vries, M. C., Daams, J. G., & Lindauer, R. J. L. (2015) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/1472-6939-16-1 · Cited by 191
“Various authors argue that early adolescents (10 to 14) are more susceptible to peer influences than at any other age [16], which may hinder their ability to make thoughtful decisions [15].”
BackgroundRacine, É., Larivière‐Bastien, D., Bell, E., et al. (2012) · Child Care Health and Development · doi:10.1111/cch.12018 · Cited by 48
High court should not restrict access to puberty blockers for minors
Beattie, C. (2021) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-107055 · Cited by 45
Adolescent Pediatric Decision-Making: A Critical Reconsideration in the Light of the Data
Partridge, B. C. (2014) · HEC Forum · doi:10.1007/s10730-014-9250-8 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- PIKER, A.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi (US)
- Corresponding author
- PIKER, ANDY
- Venue
- Bioethics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-04-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 202-208
- ISSN
- 0269-9702 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1945453291
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 1604 d)
- Locations
- Bioethics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Texas A and M University-Corpus Christi
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Children's Rights and Participation
- Keywords
- paternalism, protectionism, liberationism, best interests, adolescent development
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Decision Making, Humans, Informed Consent, Pediatrics, United States, Adolescent Health Services, Mental Competency, Personal Autonomy, Paternalism, Minors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
