Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 4, 2026

Making MR Imaging Child's Play - Pediatric Neuroimaging Protocol, Guidelines and Procedure
Published on: July 30, 2009
Obliging children
1Centre for Ethics and Social Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, UK. barry.lyons@postgrad.manchestor.ac.uk
Insights
Children may be subjected to medical procedures for others' benefit, like bone marrow donation or non-therapeutic research. The "obligation model" justifying this is flawed, masking a conflict between parental rights and a child's bodily integrity.
Area of Science:
- Bioethics
- Medical Law
- Child Welfare
Background:
- Children sometimes face medical interventions not for their own health.
- Examples include bone marrow donation and non-therapeutic research participation.
- Justifications often cite children's obligations to family or society.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically analyze the 'obligation model' used to justify non-beneficial medical interventions on children.
- To examine the ethical and legal implications of this model.
- To clarify the conflict between parental rights and children's bodily integrity.
Main Methods:
- Philosophical analysis of ethical justifications.
- Examination of legal and moral concepts of obligation.
- Deconstruction of the 'obligation model' using H.L.A. Hart's distinctions.
Main Results:
- The 'obligation model' is based on a confusion between 'being under an obligation' and 'being obliged'.
- This model serves as a 'justificatory gloss' for consequentialist decision-making.
- It obscures the tension between parental authority and a child's right to bodily integrity.
Conclusions:
- The 'obligation model' is an inadequate justification for subjecting children to non-therapeutic medical interventions.
- A clearer understanding of obligation is needed in pediatric medical ethics.
- Re-evaluating these interventions requires a transparent approach to parental rights versus child autonomy.
Abstract:
Children may sometimes undergo healthcare procedures that are not intended to improve their health status. Such interventions might include the use of young children as bone marrow donors or their enrolment in non-therapeutic research. One of the justifications used to legitimise these interventions is the premise that children have obligations to others; to their family in the case of related bone marrow transplantation, and to wider society in the case of non-therapeutic research. However, this 'obligation model' (the notion that children possess positive obligations to advance the health status of others) fails as a justificatory paradigm because it is based upon a confusion, identified by Hart, between two notions; that of 'being under an obligation to do something' and that of 'being obliged to do something'. Instead the 'obligation model' is a device employed to put a justificatory gloss upon a consequentialist decision-making process; removing the legitimising gloss allows for a more transparent look at the conflict between parental rights and an individual child's right to bodily integrity.
Related Concept Videos
Obedience
Milgram's Obedience to Authority
Relationship with Other Adult Family Members and Siblings
Parental Care
Drug Dosing: Infants and Children
Persuasion Strategies

