The article documents how parents decided to let their daughter die after being convinced that the daughter preferred to die or instead ‘go to heaven’ as they put it, instead of seeking further treatment in the hospital. From the parents’ perspective, it was clear that their daughter needed further treatment but they later changed their minds after the daughter told them that she preferred to go to heaven. In this case, two impending issues are at hand, one which in my opinion is wrong and the other which I believe should have been the best route to take. First, it was wrong for the parents to let their child die because it was her decision but at the same time, it was right to prepare the child for death.
A study conducted by Lennings (2015) revealed that children do not have the psychological capability of making independent decisions. Instead, most of their choices are a result of parental influence and socialization; this is the same case with Michelle and Juliana. Juliana is a 4-year old child, which according to Erikson’s development theory means that the child is at a stage where they are more inquisitive about various issues. Erikson’s theory stated that between 0 to 1.5 years children rely on their parents for survival and once a child can establish that they can depend on a particular person for survival, they develop trust. Therefore, as an infant, Juliana developed trust in Michelle and when she came of age, she knew that whatever her mother was telling her was the truth. On the other side, Michelle decided to socialize the child in a certain way that made the child perceive death to be the best option. Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, & Shimpi (2004) referred to such acts as priming; therefore, the decision made by Juliana was as a result of her mother’s priming. If Juliana’s mother socialized her daughter to embrace the hospital interventions because it will help her stay alive or if only the mother could glorify life over death, then it is inevitable that Juliana would not have chosen ‘heaven’ over the hospital. In short, the decision made by Juliana not to go to the hospital was her parent’s decision disguised as the child’s decision.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A study conducted by Jalmsell, Kontio, Stein, Henter, & Kreicbergs (2015) revealed that parents who prepared their children for death in cases of terminal illness were less regretful after the end of the child as compared to those who did not do it. Therefore, the decision to initiate the subject of death to a child is encouraged for the sake of the child and the welfare of the parents. The challenge is always how to present the subject of death. Adams (2017) advises that parents should convey this message in the simplest way possible using a language that the child understands best. Parents should try to be as honest as possible to send this message. Fraser, J., Sleap & Sidebotham (2019) recommended that as much as the child has a terminal illness, parents should always give positive ques to the child and encourage them to fight rather than to relent to sickness. Positive cues and encouraging messages to the child will help the child to embrace the medical interventions they are given. The author added that such communication has the potential of easing the child’s pain even when undergoing treatment. If Juliana’s mother could have embraced such a thought, then her child would have a positive perception of the hospital treatment rather than relenting to ‘heaven.’
Conclusion
The case of Juliana highlights the reasoning behind respecting a child’s decision. However, it is essential to note that children’s choices are hugely affected by their parent’s cues, beliefs, and the socialization process, as discussed in the text.
Reference
Adams, J. Q. (2017). Anticipation: Preparing for Death. Wrestling with the Angel: Literary Writings and Reflections on Death, Dying and Bereavement , 127.
Fraser, J., Sleap, V., & Sidebotham, P. (2019). National child death review statutory and operational guidance: Key concepts for practicing pediatricians. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Education and Practice , edpract-2019.
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Shimpi, P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of memory and language , 50 (2), 182-195.
Jalmsell, L., Kontio, T., Stein, M., Henter, J. I., & Kreicbergs, U. (2015). On the child's initiative: parents communicate with their dying child about death. Death Studies , 39 (2), 111-117.
Lennings, N. J. (2015). Forward, Gillick: Are competent children, autonomous medical decision-makers? New developments in Australia. Journal of Law and the Biosciences , 2 (2), 459-468.
