What we talk about when we talk about pediatric suffering

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Medicine
• Pediatric Ethics
• Social Epistemology

Background:

• Current pediatric practice often mischaracterizes child suffering.
• Existing theories of suffering fail to adequately include non-verbal children.
• The concept of pediatric suffering is often reduced to binary ethical dilemmas.

Purpose of the Study:

• To reframe pediatric suffering as an evaluative judgment rather than a subjective mental state.
• To develop a more inclusive understanding of suffering in infants and children.
• To highlight the social and political dimensions of pediatric suffering.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of the use of the term 'suffering' in pediatric contexts.
• Critique of experiential accounts of suffering concerning non-verbal individuals.
• Application of philosophical arguments from Alastair MacIntyre's 'Dependent Rational Animals'.

Main Results:

• Identified two problematic poles in pediatric suffering: denial of suffering in cognitively impaired children and ethical elimination of suffering children.
• Found experiential accounts of suffering inadequate due to flawed assumptions about non-expressive individuals.
• Proposed that child suffering is best understood as the absence of essential conditions like love, warmth, and pain-freedom.

Conclusions:

• Pediatric suffering is fundamentally an evaluation of unmet needs and conditions, underscoring children's dependency.
• Child suffering is inherently a social and political issue, as children cannot independently mitigate their own suffering.
• Recognizing pediatric suffering as an evaluation necessitates societal responsibility for children's well-being and flourishing.