Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Foster, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Foster, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 1, No. 1, 109-120 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/1359104596011010

Should a Child's Life be Sustained at all Costs?

Claire Foster

King's College London

The principle that a child's life should be sustained at all costs is coming under attack for many different and compelling reasons. In this article I explore the main objections to sustaining life in the form of a dialogue. Each of the following three arguments will be addressed: i) that resources are limited and choices based on outcome should be made between patients and between treatments; ii) that a patient's life may not be worth living if its quality is very bad, and a patient's carer may also be being asked to make too great a sacrifice for the sake of the patient's life; iii) that if a patient is competent and wants to die, then he or she should be allowed to; likewise, in the case of a young child or baby, the wishes of the parents or guardians should be respected. I conclude, however, that these are not sufficient moral justifications for not seeking to sustain life. At the same time I acknowledge that the principle of always seeking to sustain life was not reached by means of rational consideration but was accepted from a standpoint of religious ethics, and I defend that standpoint.

Key Words: humanity • limited resources • morality • quality of life • sustaining life


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clinical Child Psychology and PsychiatryHome page
B. Lask
Controversies and Challenges in Clinical Practice
Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, October 1, 1996; 1(4): 505 - 511.
[Abstract]