Some Asian Value Reflections on Children’s Autonomy

IF 1.3 Q3 ETHICS
Daniel Fu-Chang Tsai, Yu-Chen Chou
{"title":"Some Asian Value Reflections on Children’s Autonomy","authors":"Daniel Fu-Chang Tsai,&nbsp;Yu-Chen Chou","doi":"10.1007/s41649-025-00358-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper provides an ethical reflection on “children’s autonomy” from the perspective of cross-cultural bioethics based on theories related to Asian values. The author supports the premise of “children’s” autonomy and explores the differences between Western and non-Western cultures regarding claims of children’s autonomy. By comparing the legal regulations on children’s medical decisions in the USA, the UK, Japan, and Taiwan, the paper illustrates the national legal differences in children’s decision-making, even under the influence of similar Asian cultural values. The author further explains, adopting Tsai’s “Confucian two-dimensional personhood theory” and Markus and Kitayama’s “Construal of Self” theory, that although Asian countries like Taiwan have historically been influenced by relational personhood dimension and interdependent self-construal orientation, individual autonomy and children’s medical decisions are significantly affected or limited by family or parental determinism. However, under the influence of global human rights values and universal bioethical principles, the conceptions, legislations, and practices have evolved towards respecting individual rights and autonomous choices. Hereby, Tsai’s two-dimensional personhood theory can balance the tension between individual autonomy and family determinism, as well as between children’s autonomy and paternalism. This theoretical framework can provide a rational resolution to the long-standing cross-cultural bioethical controversy regarding individual autonomy and family determinism, and offer insights and solutions for pediatric ethics and children’s medical decisions under Asian values.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":"17 2","pages":"357 - 367"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-025-00358-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper provides an ethical reflection on “children’s autonomy” from the perspective of cross-cultural bioethics based on theories related to Asian values. The author supports the premise of “children’s” autonomy and explores the differences between Western and non-Western cultures regarding claims of children’s autonomy. By comparing the legal regulations on children’s medical decisions in the USA, the UK, Japan, and Taiwan, the paper illustrates the national legal differences in children’s decision-making, even under the influence of similar Asian cultural values. The author further explains, adopting Tsai’s “Confucian two-dimensional personhood theory” and Markus and Kitayama’s “Construal of Self” theory, that although Asian countries like Taiwan have historically been influenced by relational personhood dimension and interdependent self-construal orientation, individual autonomy and children’s medical decisions are significantly affected or limited by family or parental determinism. However, under the influence of global human rights values and universal bioethical principles, the conceptions, legislations, and practices have evolved towards respecting individual rights and autonomous choices. Hereby, Tsai’s two-dimensional personhood theory can balance the tension between individual autonomy and family determinism, as well as between children’s autonomy and paternalism. This theoretical framework can provide a rational resolution to the long-standing cross-cultural bioethical controversy regarding individual autonomy and family determinism, and offer insights and solutions for pediatric ethics and children’s medical decisions under Asian values.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信