Ethical considerations in the treatment of adolescents with gonorrhea
Silber, J.
Boletin de la Asociacion Medica de Puerto Rico 74(4): 140-142
1982
ISSN/ISBN: 0004-4849 PMID: 6960903 Document Number: 701085
Adolescents increasingly come to physicians' offices for treatment of venereal diseases. The question often arises: "Shouldn't the parents know?" This is frequently expressed in terms of conflict around the issues of consent and confidentiality. The way in which we answer the preceding question depends on how a society defines children in relationship to their parents. Historically, the earliest response was the doctrine of "parental sovereignty", which assumes a parental claim of ownership of their children. In the late 19th century the state imposed limits to parental ownership in those circumstances in which the children were considered to be in danger: the "child welfare" position. In spite of their dissimilarity, both of these interpretations have a significant element in common: adolescents have no rights of their own. Either the parents or the state determine what is to be in their best interest. In the past two decades, a new philosophy appeared dealing with the "civil rights" of adolescents. This approach allows for parents or the state to represent the minors' interest only as long as the adolescent is notable to do so. This concept has been referred to as the "mature minor doctrine." The ethical justification for this position is based on the principle of autonomy and the principle of beneficence. The legal implications of this ethical consideration are being developed in state laws which recognize that teenagers should have access to confidential medical care in order to facilitate treatment and control of gonorrhea.
Document emailed within 1 workday
