Ethical Issues Surrounding Occupational Therapy

How hard is it to say that a child will never really progress further with intervention? Whether or not treating a child past the points of progress have been an ethical issue surrounding Occupational Therapy. There are few studies in the stagnancy of progress with children, so making a decision, while partially uninformed can be quite difficult. A 2004 National Center for Biotechnology Information Study found that waiting to see if further treatment will yield success can be detrimental to the psyche of not only the child but also the parents. This brings forth a critical decision of whether to continue heightening the hopes of a family in distress or to inform the family that treatment is futile. There is a major concern about the welfare

One of the most usual arguments in favor of prolonged treatment is that it could yield results. The problem with this claim is that there is little research or trials to enforce it. Padawer brings forth a single case of a child that has combated Autism which does give a small validation to the fact that extensive care can be beneficial. This however is insignificant to the thousands of other cases circulating without helpful research that can make a difference for the children. A study by Deborah L. Kasman, researcher in medical futility, founded that there is a point where treatment is futile. This is reached when the physician validates three points. Medical futility occurs when: there is a goal, there is a certain action or activity aimed at achieving the goal, and there is a virtual certainty that the action will fail at achieving its goal (Kasman 8). With these factors in mind, I cannot see why we would advocate for further treatment when all three points have been clearly achieved. Advocates who mistakenly believe that extensive research will aid children also believe that prolonged treatment can have positive effects. Leane Sakzewski, published in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, believes that changing the treatment can improve results by 7.5%(Sakzewski 4) This idea is quite compelling, and I will admit that arguments like Sakzewskis

Many children being told that change will come if they continue treatment are being mislead. This indefinite information not only damages the trust between the physician and the child, but also deteriorates their hope of change. This lack of hope on the surface seems unimportant but it directly affects the child’s mental and physical state. This is fundamentally illustrated by James Lock’s paper “Treatment of Adolescent Eating Disorders: Progress and Challenges,” which found that in cases that will not yield results and the only option would be constant treatment it would be best to be direct as possible with the family. In not being direct you are resulting the parents to watching their son/daughter being poked and prodded for no type of progress. The implications of these prolonged treatments are explained clearly by S. West, distinguished researcher for rehabilitation in children. He explains that there is a point in which progress will halt and that it is the physician’s job to inform the family that nothing can be done at this point in time. In light of this statement it is clear to me that further treatment of children past the point of progress is not the solution in terms of positive effectiveness, because they yield the opposite intended