Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Whose Future Is It? Ethical Family Decision Making About Daughters’ Treatment in the Oncofertility Context

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Oncofertility

Part of the book series: Cancer Treatment and Research ((CTAR,volume 156))

Abstract

In cases of fertility-threatening cancer treatments, the choice whether or not to undergo fertility preservation treatment before cancer treatment begins represents a high-stakes, time-sensitive, emotionally charged, nested decision [1]. The choice is life altering and, although presumably a discrete decision, the fertility preservation decision serves as an outcome of a very recent challenging decision to pursue fertility-threatening cancer treatments. Patients and their family members will experience the dual impact of these linked treatment-related decisions for years to come. For many patients, family members play significant roles in treatment-related decision making. However, if the patient has not reached the age of legal majority, family members play additional roles in the decision-making processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Galvin KM. Deliberation in a contested medical context: developing a framework to aid family decision making when an adolescent son faces fertility-threatening cancer treatment. Alta Argument Conference. Vol. 16. Alta: Utah 2009:98–105.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Minuchin S. Family kaleidoscope. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Galvin KM, Dickson FC, Marrow SR. Systems theory: patterns and (W)holes in family communication. In: Braithwaite D, Baxter L, Eds. Engaging theories in family communication: multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006:309–24.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Levetown M. Communicating with children and families: from everyday interactions to skill in conveying distressing information. Pediatrics. 2008; 121(5):e1441–e60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McCabe MA. Involving children and adolescents in medical decision making: developmental and clinical considerations. J Pediatr Psychol. 1996; 21(4):505–16.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Roter D. The enduring and evolving nature of the patient-physician relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2000; 39(1):5–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Committee on Bioethics, American Academy of Pediatrics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995; 95(2):314–7.

    Google Scholar 

  8. McCabe MA, Rushton CH, Glover J, Murray MG, Leikin S. Implications of the Patient Self-Determination Act: guidelines for involving adolescents in medical decision making. J Adolesc Health. 1996; 19(5):319–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 60(3):301–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997; 44(5):681–92.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R. Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. Br J Gen Pract. 2000; 50(460):892–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fallat ME, Hutter J. Preservation of fertility in pediatric and adolescent patients with cancer. Pediatrics. 2008; 121(5):e1461–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Whitney SN, Ethier AM, Fruge E, Berg S, McCullough LB, Hockenberry M. Decision making in pediatric oncology: who should take the lead? The decisional priority in pediatric oncology model. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(1):160–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Foreman DM. The family rule: a framework for obtaining ethical consent for medical interventions from children. J Med Ethics. 1999; 25(6):491–6, discussion 497–500.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ladd RE, Forman EN. Adolescent decision-making: giving weight to age-specific values. Theor Med. 1995; 16(4):333–45.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Oppenheim D, Brugieres L, Corradini N, Vivant F, Hartmann O. An ethics dilemma: when parents and doctors disagree on the best treatment for the child. Bull Cancer. 2004; 91(9):735–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Public Law #101-508 && 4206; 4751 (codified at 42 USC &&1395 cc, 1369a(a))1990.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Anderson RA, Weddell A, Spoudeas HA, et al. Do doctors discuss fertility issues before they treat young patients with cancer? Hum Reprod. 2008; 23(10):2246–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Simon C, Eder M, Raiz P, Zyzanski S, Pentz R, Kodish ED. Informed consent for pediatric leukemia research: clinician perspectives. Cancer. 2001; 92(3):691–700.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fisher-Jeffes L, Barton C, Finlay F. Clinicians’ knowledge of informed consent. J Med Ethics. 2007; 33(3):181–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Joffe S, Fernandez CV, Pentz RD, et al. Involving children with cancer in decision-making about research participation. J Pediatr. 2006; 149(6):862–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Institute of Medicine Committee on Clinical Research Involving Children. Ethical conduct of clinical research involving children. Washington: National Academies Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Galvin KM, Diversity’s impact on defining the family. In: Turner L, West R, Eds. The family communication source book. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006:3–19.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Kreider RM. Adopted children and stepchildren: 2000 (C2KBR-30). Census 2000 Special Reports. 2003. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-6.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2005.

  25. Simmons T, O’Neill G Households and families: 2000 (C2KVR/01-8). Census 2000 brief. 2001. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/cd2br01-8.pdf growing number of cases, children are raised in households headed by. Accessed December 18, 2004.

  26. Mallon GP. Gay men choosing parenthood. New York: Columbia University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Backhus LE, Zoloth L. Today’s research, tomorrows cures: the ethical implications of oncofertility. In: Woodruff TK, Snyder KA, Eds. Oncofertility. Vol. 138. New York: Springer; 2007:163–79.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Clayman ML, Galvin KM, Arntson P, Cameron K.A., Harper M. Use of theory to develop a decision aid for parents whose daughters face cancer-related threats to fertility. Paper presented at International Shared Decision Making Conference Boston, June 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schmidt EB. The parental obligation to expand a child’s range of open futures when making genetic trait selections for their child. Bioethics. 2007; 21(4):191–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hardwig J. What about the family? Hastings Cent Rep. 1990; 20:5–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Davis DS. The parental investment factor and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Cent Rep. 2009; 39(2):24–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Health literacy: report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. JAMA. 1999; 281(6):552–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(17):1216–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Morris NS, MacLean CD, Littenberg B. Literacy and health outcomes: a cross-sectional study in 1002 adults with diabetes. BMC Fam Pract. 2006; 7:49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Murphy-Knoll L. Low health literacy puts patients at risk: the Joint Commission proposes solutions to national problem. J Nurs Care Qual. 2007; 22(3):205–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G. Statistical illiteracy undermines informed shared decision making. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2008; 102(7):411–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gigerenzer G. Making sense of health statistics. Bull World Health Organ. 2009; 87(8):567.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hoffrage U, Lindsey S, Hertwig R, Gigerenzer G. Medicine. Communicating statistical information. Science. 2000; 290(5500):2261–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Crawshaw M, Sloper P. A qualitative study of the experiences of teenagers and young adults when faced with possible or actual fertility impairment following cancer treatment. 2006. http://york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/pdf/fertility.pdf. Accessed December 28, 2006.

  40. Runeson I, Enskar K, Elander G, Hermeren G. Professionals’ perceptions of children’s participation in decision making in healthcare. J Clin Nurs. 2001; 10(1):70–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Parens E. Respecting children with disabilities – and their parents. Hastings Cent Rep. 2009; 39(1):22–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hutchinson MK. The influence of sexual risk communication between parents and daughters on sexual risk behaviors. Fam Relat. 2002; 51:238–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jaccard J, Dittust P, Gordon V. Parent-adolescent communication about premarital sex: factors associated with the extent of communication. J Adolesc Res. 2000; 15:187–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Maddock J. Healthy family sexuality: positive principles for educators and clinicians. Fam Relat. 1989; 38:130–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Warren C. Communicating about sex with parents and partners. In: Galvin KM, Cooper PJ, Eds. Making connections: readings in relational communication. 4th edn. Los Angeles: Roxbury; 2006:319–22.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zoloth L, Backhus L, Woodruff T. Waiting to be born: the ethical implications of the generation of “NUBorn” and “NUAge” mice from pre-pubertal ovarian tissue. Am J Bioeth. 2008; 8(6):21–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Balen A., Glaser A. Health conditions and treatments affecting fertility in childhood and teenage years. In: Balen R, Crawshaw M, Eds. Sexuality and fertility issues in ill health and disability. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2006:67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Imber-Black E. The secret life of families. New York: Bantam Books; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kinahan KE, Sharp LK, Arntson P, Galvin K, Grill L, Didwania A. Adult survivors of childhood cancer and their parents: experiences with survivorship and long-term follow-up. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2008; 30(9):651–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Featherstone K, Atkinson P, Bharadwaj A, Clarke A. Risky relations: family, kinship, and the new genetics. New York: Berg Publishers; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Nieman CL, Kinahan KE, Yount SE, et al. Fertility preservation and adolescent cancer patients: lessons from adult survivors of childhood cancer and their parents. In: Woodruff TK, Snyder KA, Eds. Oncofertility. Vol. 138. New York: Springer; 2007:201–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Oncofertility Consortium NIH 8UL1DE019587, 5RL1HD058296. Dr. Clayman is supported by Award Number K12HD055884 from NICHD.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

    Kathleen M. Galvin

  2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Marla L. Clayman

Authors
  1. Kathleen M. Galvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marla L. Clayman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen M. Galvin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Teresa K. Woodruff

  2. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Laurie Zoloth

  3. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Lisa Campo-Engelstein

  4. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, 60611-3015, Illinois, USA

    Sarah Rodriguez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Galvin, K.M., Clayman, M.L. (2010). Whose Future Is It? Ethical Family Decision Making About Daughters’ Treatment in the Oncofertility Context. In: Woodruff, T., Zoloth, L., Campo-Engelstein, L., Rodriguez, S. (eds) Oncofertility. Cancer Treatment and Research, vol 156. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6518-9_33

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-6517-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-6518-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation