The family rule: a reply to Alderson

AUTOR(ES)

Foreman, D M

RESUMO

In her commentary, Alderson makes four major criticisms of the family rule. She claims that: consent must be explicit; that consenting parties should be reasonably equal; that the concept of a family rule adds little to current understanding, and that the effect of applying the concept in practice will be to impair the consenting process. However, there are other important examples of implicit consent in daily life, and consent between unequals is common and unexceptionable. The family rule establishes an unequivocal ethical base for the role of children, parents and practitioners in the consenting process, which is sorely needed. This base structures practitioners' interventions towards children in an appropriately empowering manner. Therefore, Alderson's critical objections fail.

Documentos Relacionados

• The family rule: a framework for obtaining ethical consent for medical interventions from children.
• The N-end rule: functions, mysteries, uses.
• A comparison between clinicians' assessment and the Manchester Self‐Harm Rule: a cohort study
• The exception and the rule of Bertolt Brecht or the exception with how rule: a reading
• Commentary on the “Family Rule”