[Paradoxes in the judicial institution concerning decision-making in pediatric oncology]

Abstract

In paediatric oncology, the medical decision-making process is characterized by the importance of what is at stake: the vital prognosis. Refusal of care, or, more specifically, refusal of a treatment, always appears "at the crossroads of multiple stakes... implicating an entourage [family members], a medical team, and rules of law that sometimes give rise to contradictory interpretations". Paradoxes in the judicial institution are evident on two levels: i) in the values established by the law; where adults are concerned, the law explicitly refuses to consider the biological survival of an individual as the supreme value; it gives priority to respect of the patient's wishes and his or her autonomy; for children, in contrast, the supreme value established by the law is biological survival; the physician must provide the care indispensable to protect the health of a minor at all cost; ii) between legal texts and jurisprudence; while the law authorizes a physician to override the parental authority when he judges a treatment necessary to protect the health of a minor, jurisprudence in pediatric oncology has always declined to define the best therapeutic strategy where a child's chances of survival are concerned.