Assessing the Appropriate Role for Children in Health Decisions

Published on 10/06/2015 by admin

Filed under Pediatrics

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1364 times

chapter 22 Assessing the Appropriate Role for Children in Health Decisions

Medical decision-making in pediatric practice is ideally a collaborative process involving parents, the pediatrician, other members of the health care team and, when appropriate, the children themselves. Pediatricians have a long tradition of helping parents make health decisions for their children. As these decisions become increasingly complex, practitioners require great skill in communicating medical prognosis as well as the risks and potential benefits of different interventions. The role of parents as primary decision-makers for infants and young children is clear. Caring and responsible parents are entrusted by society with the authority to give permission for health care decisions made in the best interests of their children.

Pediatricians owe ethical and legal duties to their child and adolescent patients, independent of parental authority. Children have been traditionally excluded from medical decision-making because they were considered incompetent or nonautonomous. However, as the ethical analysis of the respectful involvement of children in medical decisions has evolved, it was recognized that children from infants to teens have radically different capacities for involvement in decisions about their life and health, and we lack clear standards by which to judge the appropriate role for this child. Just as we have increased expectations for the ethical involvement of competent adults in health decisions, there are ethical demands for improving the respectful involvement of children and adolescents. Pediatricians are expected to understand the changing ethical concerns, to be aware of the developmental science underlying growing autonomy and decisional competence, to possess the skills necessary to assess a child’s capacities, and to help parents determine the appropriate role for the child in medical decisions. As children mature, their best interests increasingly include their involvement in decisions. Assessing the role of the child in this decision is important because children are in a continuous process of decisional maturation.

The Doctor-Patient Relationship in Pediatrics

The doctor-patient relationship in pediatrics has always been with both the children and their parents or caregivers. This focus on the child within the family is a particular strength of the specialty. Our focus on determining the appropriate involvement of the child does not mean setting up an adversarial relationship between parents and child. This determination is not about scoring points to determine who is the ultimate decision-maker. Rather, the aim is to recognize the balance between parents and maturing children. Decisional competence is a “necessary but not sufficient” condition on which to base respectful involvement.

The context in which health decisions are made is extremely important in determining the appropriate role for a child. In primary care settings, the pediatrician’s knowledge of the child and family is an invaluable resource in determining the best interests of the child and in helping parents determine the child’s appropriate role.

In hospital-based and specialty care, a number of other contextual features influence the involvement of the child. Acute illness and injury often require rapid decisions about diagnosis and treatment. There may not be sufficient time to assess the appropriate role for the child in such cases, so parental judgment is relied on. Children should, however, be involved as much as is reasonable. Context and experience matter. Children who experience chronic illness have knowledge and experience of health care decisions beyond their years. Their active involvement is essential for care. The clini- cian often has an established relationship with such a child and the family, enabling him or her to intimately understand both the child and the family and to identify potential or emerging conflicts in parent-child communications.

A life-threatening illness in children and adolescents poses particular challenges. Some parents refuse to have their children involved in any way in end-of-life decisions. Some even explicitly forbid the pediatrician to speak honestly to their child or adolescent, presenting serious challenges to crucial communication and trust. In-depth discussion of the ethical dilemmas created by such situations are beyond the scope of this chapter. Here we focus on the skills needed by practitioners to assess the child’s capacities and to assist parents and children in their medical decisions. Involvement in medical research is even more complex and will not be addressed here.

The Traditional Role of Parents and Families

Parents are primarily responsible for protecting and promoting their children’s interests. Children are raised in an increasingly complex set of parental or caregiver contexts, which may consist of a two-parent, single-parent, or blended family, foster care, children of same-sex couples, or a homeless family. These familial and social factors shape the substance and context of decisions. Parents who are not neglectful, exploitive, or abusive of their children are generally granted wide discretion in making decisions for them. This discretion is granted for many reasons, some of which include the following:

Formally, parents serve as surrogate decision-makers for their children. There are two kinds of third party decision-makers: proxies and surrogates. A proxy is appointed by a competent person to act for them if they become incompetent, and the standard to be used is that of substituted judgment of the person for whom they have proxy. Proxies are to decide as best as they can what the person would have wanted.

Parents are surrogate decision-makers. Surrogates are, by convention or law, given authority to decide for those who have not yet or never manifested their values and preferences. The standard used by surrogates is that of the “best interest” of the person for whom they decide. Clearly, “best interest” is complex and often contested, as demonstrated in different understandings of a patient’s best interest, judged from the medical perspective and that of parents or guardians. Parents do take into account the unique characteristics of their child—age, illness, personality, and maturation in determination of best interest, but they do not have the same clear direction that proxies have.

Moreover, parents guide their children to decisional maturity in many and varied ways. The differences are related to the personality of the child and to the family’s religious, ethnic, and cultural characteristics. Some parents are extremely protective of their children and limit all aspects of the child’s involvement in decision-making, including the disclosure of information. Others actively promote involvement of the child in decision-making from an early age.

A child’s need-to-know medical information, especially about prognosis, can be a source of real conflict for parents, the pediatrician, and other members of the health care team. Even for a child who demonstrates decisional maturity, parents may have good reasons to limit the child’s present-day autonomy in favor of lifetime goals because children’s decisions are based on limited experience. Finally, family interests and goals are important, too. Physicians provide for a child’s medical needs only. The parents provide for all of the child’s needs and assume the consequences of medical decisions made for their children. Parents may need to balance their child’s best interest with the family’s best interest.

Evolving Understanding of Respectful Involvement of Children in Medical Decisions

Respect for the autonomy of patients is a fundamental principle of contemporary ethical practice. Informed choice is the main tool for respecting autonomy. The ethical requirements for informed choice include:

Respect for child and adolescent patients includes respect for their developing autonomy, their dependence on parents and family, and their informational and emotional needs. Competence to make an autonomous, informed choice is content-specific and decision-specific. In general, the higher the levels of risk and harm, the greater the competence required. Even when children have not yet developed decisional maturity, respecting their needs for information privacy, intimacy, confidentiality, truthfulness, and trust is essential. The pediatrician’s task is to balance respectful involvement of the child with parental authority and judgment. The real question is, “What is the appropriate role for the child in this health care decision?”

The pediatrician must assess the following issues:

Professional guidelines have been developed to assist pediatricians with this assessment. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has identified the following three categories of children:

In attempting to provide this guidance, the AAP developed the concepts of assent and dissent to recognize the developing capacity of children in the second category. However, these concepts and categories are confusing and contradictory in actual usage. When the child’s assent is in agreement with the parental decision, we have no problem. When a child dissents, we are unclear as to the moral authority of that dissent because it is not yet a competent refusal.

The following general categories have been further refined to identify the broader needs and capacities of children in four categories:

The role of parents for children in category 1 is clear. Parents are surrogate decisions-makers for their infants and young children. The pediatrician’s role for such children is the traditional one of providing care for the child and information and support for the parental decision.

For children in categories 2 and 3, the role of a particular child in a given health decision must be determined. The pediatrician brings medical and developmental expertise to an assessment of such a child’s capacity and need to participate. We outline here some specific assessment techniques that the pediatrician or other members of the health care team can use to more clearly identify the child’s role. It is important to recognize the need for information and involvement, even for the child who has not yet developed decisional maturity.

The role of adolescents (category 4) is complex. Some of the techniques identified for the assessment of younger children are useful for young adolescents. We address specific considerations regarding more mature adolescents in a special section of the chapter.

Assessing the Appropriate Role for Children in Health Decisions

Although there is an expectation for attention to the respectful involvement of children and adolescents in medical decisions, “[T]here has been a significant gap between what has been documented in scientific research about children’s competence and recommendations regarding policies for children’s involvement in the consent process.” More research is clearly needed in this area. In addition, there is concern that bioethics is dominated by “outdated Piagetian age-stage theories of child development that end to emphasize children’s ignorance, inexperience, and inability to make truly informed autonomous decisions…” Newer qualitative social research, especially with children with chronic illness and disability, reveals higher levels of knowledge and competence than given credit for through traditional developmental psychological testing. More work is needed here.

Within the constraints of empirical evidence and differing approaches to determining the child’s role in medical decisions, pediatricians have some fundamental duties. To understand the respectful involvement of a child or adolescent in decision-making, the pediatrician must assesses the child’s capacities for the following:

The child’s capacity for communication

Issues

Competence in decision-making requires a capacity for understanding and expressing language. Assessing the child’s ability to understand basic concepts of health, illness, and treatment is essential for determining the proper role of the child in medical decisions. Although the development of verbal abilities is an early maturational task, everyone who listens to children knows that they can use language in ways that have meanings that differ from how adults understand the words.

Children’s language and cognitive development must be sufficient to understand the medical information given to them. Understanding the meaning of certain concepts essential for decision-making, such as risk, pain, consequences, and death, requires certain life experiences. Caregivers can have legitimate differences of opinion about what the child truly understands about such concepts.

Conveying information to a child about medical interventions is a necessary step in determining the child’s understanding. But how much information is enough? As in communications with parents, you must impart difficult or complex information gradually. If the child’s threshold for understanding has been reached, more information might create anxiety and distress and should be withheld for the moment. Letting the child tell you how much he or she needs to know is an important strategy; it gives the child some sense of control of the situation. Figure 22–1 is the picture that a 12-year-old drew and used to ask a question that was too scary to verbalize.

Listening is also important. Children can use language or direct questions to intellectualize their distress and thus appear to be more comfortable and coping better than they really are. This observation can apply particularly to children with chronic illness or disability who become very comfortable with hospital jargon and routines.

Case Histories

Case History 1

History. Rachel is an 8-year-old girl who was diagnosed with high-risk lymphocytic leukemia 4 months ago. She has experienced multiple complications, and the leukemia is not yet in remission. A systemic fungal infection is just being controlled. Rachel has been very ill since her diagnosis. Medical opinion is clear that chemotherapy must be continued. Her parents are extremely anxious that everything be done for this little girl. However, her primary care nurse and a child life specialist have concerns. Rachel has stated repeatedly that she does not want the medicine. Over the past few weeks, she has begun to talk about wanting to be an “angel with God.” She is markedly resistant to treatment and becomes angry about any medical intervention. The question now being raised is whether to honor her wishes about discontinuing therapy or force her to participate in it.

Rachel has experienced shock and loss, as well as physical pain and distress, since the diagnosis. To cope, she needs to understand what is happening to her. Her resistance to further treatment is a very common experience in such situations. Among other things, it may represent an opportunity for Rachel to exercise some control in a situation in which she feels totally out of control. However, the hoped-for medical benefit here is still a cure. Familial beliefs and experiences color both her language and her understanding of the concepts involved. In this difficult situation, Rachel’s parents alternate between finding solace in believing that Rachel is comfortable with dying and the fear that she has “given up” because she says she wants to be an angel.

In what way is Rachel’s understanding relevant to the medical decision? Is Rachel simply repeating words she has heard? Does she really equate angel with death? Much important communication from children of all ages is nonverbal. Children even younger than Rachel try to find some meaning in their illness.

Strategies

At 8 years old, Rachel is just developing reasoning abilities for probability and consequences. She is able to use thought processes to assess events and has a concept of time and the relationship of events. However, she still demonstrates some elements of magical thinking. Many strategies are available that allow us to listen to children like Rachel so that we can understand their fears and hopes.

Body outline doll. A soft, simple body-shaped doll (Fig. 22–2), or the child’s own doll is a useful tool for teaching the child about illness as well as assessing the child’s understanding. For Rachel, the doll can represent the angel she wishes to be. Play and discussions involving the doll can help Rachel’s parents and physician better understand how she pictures herself as an angel. Because children use concrete language, parents and caregivers may assume that they understand more than they do; however, children can and do express important issues if the communication tool is appropriate.

In their interactions with Rachel, her caregivers and parents use the body outline doll in play to represent an angel, and they ask questions such as, “Who lives with the angel? What does the angel do during the day? Where does the angel live?”

Rachel’s answers make it clear to her family and her caregivers that her understanding of being an angel is very different from the adult perception. Rachel believes that as an angel, she could stay with her family and play with her friends and that, for the most part, things could remain the way they have been.

Artwork. Children’s artwork can contribute essential information about their awareness, understanding, and fears. Listening to children’s interpretations of their own drawings is an important way for adults to assess their understanding of abstract situations. It is important for Rachel’s physician and family to have a clear understanding of her beliefs. Rachel’s explanation of her drawings of herself as an angel gives them another way of achieving this goal (Fig. 22–3). Asking Rachel the same questions that were asked during play with the body outline doll will help the adults see the topic of angels through Rachel’s eyes.

Comment. These strategies help Rachel’s parents and caregivers understand that she is fearful but believes that if she refuses treatment, she can just go home. The permanence and irreversibility of death are not meaningful concepts for Rachel. Her parents can now see that she is not ready for death but is simply frightened and anxious. Rachel needs more participation in the medical decisions being made for her, not as the primary decision-maker but as the central figure whose fears and expectations must be addressed if she is to participate in her care.

Capacities for reasoning

Issues

In addition to understanding basic concepts of health and disease, medical decision-making requires knowledge of disease causation and the consequences of various choices. A young child’s understanding of causation is often dominated by the belief that an illness was caused by something he or she failed to do. The child may therefore fantasize that being “good” may make him or her better or that having been “bad” justifies the illness.

Reasoning and deliberation require an ability to deal with hypothetical reasoning (“if … then” situations). Some ability to comprehend probability and risk is also essential. A child must have an awareness of the future and of consequences to make a valid choice. Children who demonstrate capacities for reasoning and deliberation have developed sufficient linguistic skill to understand information if it is given in a sensitive, age-appropriate manner, so attention can focus on the child’s ability to reason and take into account the consequences of choices.

A child’s reasoning and deliberating capacity is more difficult to assess than his or her language comprehension. The child must have sufficient maturity to focus on the decision, reflect on the issues, deal with alternatives, understand risks and harms, and use both inductive and deductive reasoning. The experience of the illness itself, of medical interventions, of hospitalization, and of the family’s response to the illness all affect this deliberation.

Children’s ability to focus on decision-making depends largely on their sense of the locus of control. Children between ages 6 and 9 years do not generally see themselves as being decision-makers in any meaningful way. By ages 8 to 11 years, children are developing the role-playing skills necessary to weigh different options. By ages 12 to 14 years, these skills are quite well developed and support a youngster’s decision-making capacity. Regardless of age, seriously ill children feel overwhelmed and out of control, as evidenced by the touching drawing and poem shown in Figure 22–4. This lack of control can impair the child’s ability to focus on the issues and decisions.

Deductive and inductive reasoning skills affect children’s understanding of disease causation. Children age 6 years and younger have magical views of disease causation. In actual usage, most children begin to understand that there are multiple causes of illness and that the body responds variably to both illness and treatments. Some children generate their own theories of disease to protect themselves against full awareness. Between ages 11 and 13 years, most children are developing sufficient capacity to understand medical choices and their consequences. By age 14 years, most adolescents have the cognitive skills necessary for complex decision-making; but other issues, such as emotional maturity, interdependence with families, and an enduring sense of the “good,” should also be taken into account.

Case History 2

History. Jason, now 11 years old, was diagnosed with renal failure at age 3. Since then, he has been dependent on dialysis. Currently, there are clear indications that he is rejecting his second kidney transplant despite optimum treatment. Once again, his name has been added to the transplant waiting list. Jason says clearly and consistently that he does not want another kidney transplant because it “won’t work.” His mother, a single-parent caregiver, is distraught and confused. On the one hand, she desperately wants Jason to have another transplant; on the other, she hears him refusing to go through this again.

Strategies

Jason has been through a lot. At age 11, he has spent most of his life with a chronic illness and multiple medical interventions. He has experienced the benefits and limitations of modern medicine firsthand. Certain strategies can help Jason express understandings, fears, and choices, including the use of “what if” games, role-playing, and story-telling.

What if. The “what if” activity can help Jason understand abstract situations in more concrete terms. Simple picture cards can be used to represent his choice of transplant list or no transplant list and the consequences of each choice (Fig. 22–5). This strategy is more successful if Jason identifies with the pictures. Therefore, photographs of himself, his family, and their particular situations are best. Jason, at age 11 with 8 years of repeated medical interventions, may well show that he truly understands the consequence of refusing another transplant. His understanding of continued dialysis dependence can become clear. He may believe that the failure of the first two transplants is predictive of another failure. Alternatively, Jason may be depressed or may have lost faith in medicine because of his past experience. The “what if” cards can help demonstrate logical and appropriate reasoning, magical thinking, or confusion.

Finish the story/drawing. The “finish the story/drawing” strategy could be useful in assessing Jason’s understanding of the future implications of decision-making. He would be given a story and asked to finish it by depicting what he thought would happen if a specific course were followed. The key to this strategy is to use the story or drawing as a basis for discussing outcomes and the implications of choices.

Concepts of the “good”

Issues

Medical decisions involve balancing benefits hoped for from the interventions, risks, and harms resulting from no intervention or from the intervention itself. The concepts of benefits and harm are related to the “good.” Good expresses the extent to which we judge that the benefits outweigh the harms. Values are enduring—not unchanging but stable. How the values that the child holds today relate to future interests is a key issue. Children ages 7 to 13 years still view the world in fairly concrete terms and seem to have great difficulty anticipating a real future. So what seems to be a here-and-now concrete “good”—no pain, no vomiting, going home—can overwhelm less tangible “goods” in a nebulous future.

Case History 3

History. Adam, a 10-year-old with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, is demanding that he be connected to a ventilator if he experiences respiratory failure. His parents believe that he just does not know what this decision really means and that the burden of prolonging his suffering with ventilator dependency is wrong.

Children can fail to weigh future interests appropriately or may not appreciate how their future values may change. Determining the child’s role in decision-making requires an assessment of a sufficient and enduring sense of the “goods” that are important for today and the future.

Everyone experiences a range of knowledge, motivation, and freedom of decision-making in the presence of risk. By age 9, most children can make a reasonable decision; however, they may be less able to understand all of the critical elements involved, especially the consequences of refusing an intervention and their freedom to refuse it.

Strategies

Adam’s demand presents an apparent child-parent conflict. As a 10-year-old with muscular dystrophy, he has experienced health care interventions and their benefits and burdens. He should have the cognitive skills necessary to understand what this choice means. The particular issue seems to be Adam’s sense of the “good” as he knows it and as he might experience it once he is started on continuous ventilation, contrasted with his parents’ perception of the suffering such a step would entail.

Strategies for Adam include careful discussion with and listening to him. His experience of his illness and its limitations is relevant. He may be very clear and direct in his communication of the “good.” However, because feelings and deeper issues of meaning are involved, other strategies may help clarify Adam’s understanding and convey to his parents what counts for him.

Feelings diary. The goal of the feelings diary is to give Adam the means to express his feelings by asking him to keep a daily record of his good and bad feelings and experiences. In a chart format (Fig. 22–6), Adam could record his feelings and experiences at different times of the day. A careful review of Adam’s diary would give him a visual inventory or “picture” of the mixture of feelings that he has and help him see that they are not all that bad. The next step is to offer counseling designed to build in more good experiences and fewer bad ones when possible. This procedure also gives Adam’s parents and caregivers an idea of what makes him happy. His parents may begin to understand that listening to music and using his computer make Adam happy. Both activities are possible for a patient undergoing home ventilation.

The feelings diary can also elicit real conflicts. Adam may show feelings of anger toward his parents and the health care team. His statement that he wants to make a different choice for himself from that of his parents may be an attempt to control things when, in fact, he feels very out of control and frightened. This strategy can expose deeper feelings that might adversely affect the freedom Adam needs for valid decision-making.

Finish the story/drawing. The choice of long-term ventilatory support is a major issue. The primary concern is Adam and his best interest, but the decision has major consequences for his family as well. Having Adam complete the story, “When I need to go on the ventilator…” can bring up new issues for discussion. Having him consider the story beginning, “If I don’t go on the ventilator…” may open for discussion Adam’s fear of dying.

Comment. In cases such as this, the apparent conflict between parental decisions and competent child decisions evolves into a much more important discussion of the child’s care during the terminal stages of illness. This case leads naturally to the next section, on special considerations for determining the appropriate involvement of adolescents in medical decisions.

Special considerations with adolescents

Issues

The parents’ role in decisions changes as children mature and become more independent. This changing role is most clearly demonstrated in decisions involving adolescents. Times have changed for adolescents, for their parents, and for the pediatricians who care for them. They are no longer merely the recipients of decisions made on their behalf. Numerous professional bodies in the United States and Canada have expanded the boundaries of adolescent decision-making. The result is a growing recognition that most developmentally normal adolescents older than 14 years have a capacity to make health care decisions equal to that of competent decision-makers.

Although there is greater willingness on the part of parents and pediatricians to affirm this capacity, it requires careful determination and consideration of important contextual issues. In addition, many workers in this field still doubt the capacity of adolescents to make truly important health decisions, especially those regarding life-threatening and terminal illnesses. In these circumstances, parents and pediatricians might feel comfortable acknowledging the agreement of an adolescent to the decisions made by parents and the health care team. Great difficulty arises, however, when the adolescent’s choices are in conflict with those of the parents or pediatrician—such as when the adolescent refuses an intervention that others have decided should be undertaken or when the adolescent chooses an intervention in spite of his or her parents’ disapproval.

Every day, adolescents cope with serious, chronic conditions and life-threatening illnesses. They think about their situations and choices. At least some of them want to give voice to their values, provide direction regarding their care, and ensure that their wishes and preferences are carried out. Such situations reflect the uncertainty and complexity of medical care for adolescents. They raise serious questions about the capacity of adolescents to make major health decisions. Do only some adolescents have that capacity? Do they have the capacity to agree but not to refuse?

Pediatricians play a critical role here. An expanding body of professional knowledge indicates that most adolescents are capable of making decisions and giving informed consent. Some characteristics of young adolescents (ages 12 to 14 years) that must be taken into account, however, are that they

Children in middle adolescence (ages 15 to 17 years) are generally more mature but not always realistic, especially about issues of risk and future consequences. They tend to feel intensely about issues and, at times, their emotions can overmaster reasoned judgment. By later adolescence (ages 16 to 18 years), most teenagers have the capacity to make competent decisions.

Adolescents may exhibit a greater tendency than adults to minimize their own vulnerability to harm. Some believe that risk perception is substantially different in the adolescent, making the parental duty to protect from harm an important consideration even when the adolescent has achieved cognitive maturity. In fact, there is no strong empirical evidence that adolescents perceive risk of harm differently in medical decisions, as compared with most competent adults. Adolescents may have a tolerance for risk that is age-related and higher than that of adults. Adolescents may be less likely to have the stable lifelong goals necessary for a truly authentic choice, but there is no strong empirical evidence that this is so.

Significant legal issues are involved in the actual participation of some adolescents in decisions about their treatment. The specific laws of the jurisdiction, province, or state must be taken into account. Many jurisdictions have moved from an age standard of competence to one of individual determination of capacity. Another change in the law involves exceptional categories for adolescents to make personal health decisions. Some young persons are emancipated minors and are treated as adults. Minors become emancipated by marriage, legal determination, consent of the parents, or failure by parents to meet legal responsibilities (adolescents rejected by their families). Adolescents who live apart from their families and are financially self-supporting are often judged “emancipated.” Others are mature minors who are still dependent on families but have the decision-making capacity for particular medical conditions. Over the past few years, the concept of mature minors has been expanded so that rather than age itself being the criterion for decisional authority, a determination of capacity is made for the individual adolescent. There are also minor treatment statutes specifying certain health problems for which legal minors can seek treatment without parental permission; these are the problems that some adolescents would ignore if parental permission were required. Such statutes are typically limited to pregnancy, pregnancy prevention, sexually transmitted diseases, and alcohol or drug abuse.

The role of adolescent patients depends as much on the context of the intervention and the nature of the health care encounter as on the single issue of competence to consent. The role of parents in medical decision-making for adolescents is important but must be clarified in each situation. Generally, decisions regarding the treatment of adolescents without parental involvement are made in the office or clinic. The most common example is the prescription of contraceptives for sexually active adolescents.

Chronic and life-threatening conditions necessitating aggressive interventions and hospitalization require family support even for an adolescent who fulfills the criteria for competent decision-making. The ability to assume the consequences of a decision is an important component of independent decision-making. The ideal is a balance of respect for the competence of adolescents with the need for family support.

Case History 4

History. Karen, a 13-year-old girl who has been a patient in your practice for the past 8 years, arrives in the office asking to see you. She has been healthy and comes from a stable, supportive family environment. She says that she has come to see you because she wants to “go on the pill.” She is quite anxious that you do not tell her parents that she has come to you. She says her mother would “just freak out” if she knew that Karen is sexually active and is requesting contraception. Karen herself tells you that she wants to be careful and responsible about her sexual activity, which is why she has come to you for help.

Strategies

Although adolescents can be presumed to have certain maturity in decision-making, their competence to consent in specific situations must be assessed. Because Karen is only 13, you must assess her competence carefully, particularly because her parents are not involved. The issue is complex and is not simply a question of Karen’s intellectual understanding of the consequences of unprotected sexual activity.

Strategies for understanding the emotions involved in adolescent decision-making include activities for self-expression, such as keeping diaries, writing poetry, and art and music (Fig. 22–7). Karen needs to demonstrate some factual information about contraception. More importantly, however, you must determine why this 13-year-old girl is sexually active and plans to continue to be active. Why are her parents not involved in giving her information, guidance, and support?

In this case, you must balance your need to protect Karen from the consequences of unprotected sexual activity with the larger good of supporting a 13-year-old whose sexual activity may have psychological and moral consequences in the long term and who is, for reasons needing exploration, avoiding involving her parents in a major life decision.

Comment. In general, physicians need to make judgments about minimizing harm in situations such as that presented by Karen’s request. Recognizing that notification of her parents in this situation is likely to create major difficulties in the patient-physician relationship and may even lead Karen to refuse further advice or treatment, most physicians would respond positively to Karen’s request for contraception. Privacy and protection may determine the initial course of action, but there are larger issues of education and support for this teenager to which a caring physician must be committed over the “long haul.”

Case History 5

History. Thirteen-year-old Steven, who has Crohn disease, has been a patient in your practice for 5 years. During a recent flare-up, the consulting surgeon has recommended a resection to remove part of the diseased intestine. Steven believes that surgery is a drastic measure that he wants to avoid by continuing a combination of nutritional therapy and medication. Steven believes that he merely needs “to give my bowel a rest and eat really good food like my grandmother’s.” Steven’s parents agree with the surgery because they believe that Steven does not understand the impact of waiting to have the resection. They enlist your help to persuade Steven to agree to the surgery.