Cargando…

Developing a new justification for assent

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines do not clearly outline when assent should be attained from paediatric research participants, nor do they detail the necessary elements of the assent process. This stems from the fact that the fundamental justification behind the concept of assent is misunderstood. In t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sibley, Amanda, Pollard, Andrew J., Fitzpatrick, Raymond, Sheehan, Mark
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4709867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26754555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0085-x
_version_ 1782409727628541952
author Sibley, Amanda
Pollard, Andrew J.
Fitzpatrick, Raymond
Sheehan, Mark
author_facet Sibley, Amanda
Pollard, Andrew J.
Fitzpatrick, Raymond
Sheehan, Mark
author_sort Sibley, Amanda
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Current guidelines do not clearly outline when assent should be attained from paediatric research participants, nor do they detail the necessary elements of the assent process. This stems from the fact that the fundamental justification behind the concept of assent is misunderstood. In this paper, we critically assess three widespread ethical arguments used for assent: children’s rights, the best interests of the child, and respect for a child’s developing autonomy. We then outline a newly-developed two-fold justification for the assent process: respect for the parent’s pedagogical role in teaching their child to become an autonomous being and respect for the child’s moral worth. DISCUSSION: We argue that the ethical grounding for the involvement of young children in medical decision-making does not stem from children’s rights, the principle of best interests, or respect for developing autonomy. An alternative strategy is to examine the original motivation to engage with the child. In paediatric settings there are two obligations on the researcher: an obligation to the parents who are responsible for determining when and under what circumstances the child develops his capacity for autonomy and reasoning, and an obligation to the child himself. There is an important distinction between respecting a decision and encouraging a decision. This paper illustrates that the process of assent is an important way in which respect for the child as an individual can be demonstrated, however, the value lies not in the child’s response but the fact that his views were solicited in the first place. SUMMARY: This paper demonstrates that the common justifications for the process of assent are incomplete. Assent should be understood as playing a pedagogical role for the child, helping to teach him how specific decisions are made and therefore helping him to become a better decision-maker. How the researcher engages with the child supports his obligation to the child’s parents, yet why the researcher engages with the child stems from the child’s moral worth. Treating a child as having moral worth need not mean doing what they say but it may mean listening, considering, engaging or involving them in the decision.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4709867
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47098672016-01-13 Developing a new justification for assent Sibley, Amanda Pollard, Andrew J. Fitzpatrick, Raymond Sheehan, Mark BMC Med Ethics Debate BACKGROUND: Current guidelines do not clearly outline when assent should be attained from paediatric research participants, nor do they detail the necessary elements of the assent process. This stems from the fact that the fundamental justification behind the concept of assent is misunderstood. In this paper, we critically assess three widespread ethical arguments used for assent: children’s rights, the best interests of the child, and respect for a child’s developing autonomy. We then outline a newly-developed two-fold justification for the assent process: respect for the parent’s pedagogical role in teaching their child to become an autonomous being and respect for the child’s moral worth. DISCUSSION: We argue that the ethical grounding for the involvement of young children in medical decision-making does not stem from children’s rights, the principle of best interests, or respect for developing autonomy. An alternative strategy is to examine the original motivation to engage with the child. In paediatric settings there are two obligations on the researcher: an obligation to the parents who are responsible for determining when and under what circumstances the child develops his capacity for autonomy and reasoning, and an obligation to the child himself. There is an important distinction between respecting a decision and encouraging a decision. This paper illustrates that the process of assent is an important way in which respect for the child as an individual can be demonstrated, however, the value lies not in the child’s response but the fact that his views were solicited in the first place. SUMMARY: This paper demonstrates that the common justifications for the process of assent are incomplete. Assent should be understood as playing a pedagogical role for the child, helping to teach him how specific decisions are made and therefore helping him to become a better decision-maker. How the researcher engages with the child supports his obligation to the child’s parents, yet why the researcher engages with the child stems from the child’s moral worth. Treating a child as having moral worth need not mean doing what they say but it may mean listening, considering, engaging or involving them in the decision. BioMed Central 2016-01-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4709867/ /pubmed/26754555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0085-x Text en © Sibley et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Debate
Sibley, Amanda
Pollard, Andrew J.
Fitzpatrick, Raymond
Sheehan, Mark
Developing a new justification for assent
title Developing a new justification for assent
title_full Developing a new justification for assent
title_fullStr Developing a new justification for assent
title_full_unstemmed Developing a new justification for assent
title_short Developing a new justification for assent
title_sort developing a new justification for assent
topic Debate
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4709867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26754555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0085-x
work_keys_str_mv AT sibleyamanda developinganewjustificationforassent
AT pollardandrewj developinganewjustificationforassent
AT fitzpatrickraymond developinganewjustificationforassent
AT sheehanmark developinganewjustificationforassent