"Do No Harm": An Evaluation of the Courts’ Decision-Making Policies in Overruling Children & Families’ Refusal of Treatment
| dc.contributor.author | Ross, Kayleigh | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-10-31T18:22:02Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-10-31T18:22:02Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
| dc.description | Recommended Citation: Ross, Kayleigh. “‘Do No Harm’: An Evaluation of the Courts’ Decision-Making Policies in Overruling Children & Families’ Refusal of Treatment.” Royal Road, 2017. https://doi.org/10.48497/49QC-YK07. | |
| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this research paper is to prove why the courts have the authority to overrule families’ and children’s refusal of potentially life-saving treatment. The author describes the decision-making policies and laws used to guide judges’ decisions and justify their rulings. The case of Cassandra C., a seventeen-year-old minor diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, helps demonstrate how these policies are practiced in the courtroom. Court cases, particularly the case of Daniel Hauser, are used as evidence to describe why the court’s actions are warranted even in cases in which treatment is refused based on a family’s religious values. The courts’ decisions are ultimately justified since legislation’s primary initiative is to protect the greater welfare of society. After proving that the courts’ decisions are warranted, the author suggests that legislatures adopt the harm principle, contrary to the best interest standard, to not only justify court intervention, but also to clarify the circumstances necessary for involvement. With support from professionals in this field of study, the author also encourages legislators to implement the constrained parental autonomy model as opposed to the mature minor doctrine. By employing the harm principle and constrained parental autonomy model, the author argues that these decision-making laws will clarify when court intervention is justified, and thus cause less conflict in the courtroom. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | Ross, Kayleigh. “‘Do No Harm’: An Evaluation of the Courts’ Decision-Making Policies in Overruling Children & Families’ Refusal of Treatment.” Royal Road, 2017. https://doi.org/10.48497/49QC-YK07. | |
| dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.48497/49qc-yk07 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11868/221 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Department of English and Writing, The University of Tampa | en_US |
| dc.subject | Court cases | en_US |
| dc.subject | Patient refusal of treatment | en_US |
| dc.subject | Legislation | en_US |
| dc.subject | Best interest standard | en_US |
| dc.subject | Harm principle | en_US |
| dc.subject | Mature minor doctrine | en_US |
| dc.subject | Ethics | en_US |
| dc.title | "Do No Harm": An Evaluation of the Courts’ Decision-Making Policies in Overruling Children & Families’ Refusal of Treatment | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |