July 4 juillet 13:45 – 15:45
Room NCDH–201
Chair: Suzanne Lépine , Hôpital Ste Justine de Montréal
This paper will connect the inherent rights of the child to life with the rights of the child to participation. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child covers the rights of the child after birth. The right-to-life in this context is about the right of the born child. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate in which ways the child’s right to participate is a key factor to the life, survival and development of the child.
The inherent right of the child to life is a fundamental principle in International Child Rights as well as in Human Rights in general. What differentiates the child’s right to life from the general Human Right to life is that the child’s right goes beyond a mere right to not have its life taken. The child’s right-to-life includes the fact that a child is by its very definition an evolving and growing person. This means that the child also has a right to grow and develop. The UN convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 states that “State Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.”
One of the key factors to growing and developing is the
right to participate. The right to participate is not only a civil and political
right, it is also closely connected to the social, economic and cultural rights
of the child. The ability of the child to participate in forming its
environment, and the world that in return forms the growth and development of
the child, is of interest to the individual child, children and the broader
society in shaping the future.
Healthy human development has been declared an individual determinant of health. However, optimal early human development is contingent on successful early childhood experiences within the immediate environments of childhood. The role of the family in stimulating and sustaining healthy child development is the focus of this presentation. A synthesis of frameworks and published data will be used to outline some of the researcher’s important beliefs and values concerning the role of the family in early human development. The researcher and her colleagues have developed three approaches that contribute protective capacities in families. Each is based on The Family Adaptation Model. The model will be examined, as will the three approaches. The first is a family-centerd assessment and planning approach. The Natural Teaching Strategies approach is designed to enhance the contingent responsiveness and scaffolding techniques of parents. The Cooperative Family Learning approach was developed to enhance problem solving in families. Findings from a longitudinal control group investigation of these approaches will be presented. Implications for designing support to families at-risk and to families with children with special needs will be discussed.
Ms. Shadlen will speak to the issues facing an agency providing Special Education Programs for children birth to age twenty-one. She will discuss the dramatic changes that have occurred during her twenty years of providing services to children with special needs. She will specifically discuss how these changes affect families and special education children birth to five. The issues Ms. Shadlen will address include the many options available to families as they transition from one phase of a program to another, the multiple needs of children diagnosed with autism, the role of inclusion and the professional’s role in assisting families who are navigating this unfamiliar territory. The challenges for educators and institutional policy makers are all too familiar. The inconsistencies of educational programs are directly linked and depend on the economic strata of each community. However, children residing in these diverse communities have common needs. In today’s climate this incongruity poses questions that are not easily answered. However, what is clear, is our role in addressing these issues as the voice for these children.
This paper examines special education services from the perspective of families and the children needing assistance. It documents the case of Howard Iskov who had multiple diagnoses. The paper chronicles the family’s discovery of the child’s unusual condition and the traumatic process of accessing medical and education institutions on his behalf.
Ms. Iskov describes the shocking treatment methodologies and strategies taken with Howie prescribed and inflicted by hospitals, schools and camps specifically designed to serve the needs of children with emotional challenges. Howie was labeled “emotionally disturbed”, “borderline autistic” and “mildly mentally retarded.” His parents were informed by specialists that he did not understand the concept of love, arguably suggesting that their affection for the child was a waste of time. He was seen or treated by some of the most reputable hospitals in Canada and the United States.
The paper details how during Howie’s early years, every wrong therapy and wrong treatment was implemented to educate him. Every time the child urinated in his training pants, he underwent a cold shower. When he refused to complete a task put to him, he was ordered to stand up and sit down over and over again. After stay at a summer camp for children like Howie, he came home with massive bruises and many scars on his lower back. The parents were then informed that they used aversive conditioning to treat Howie and twisted his skin and bent his fingers back when he didn’t comply to their demands.
This paper details one family’s struggle with institutional systems in an effort to seek and obtain appropriate and healthy services for a child who is special. It raises questions regarding aversive conditioning, appropriate treatment of children, and the right to adequate non-abusive services for families and children.
Even though many agree that children acquire significant
experience and maturity prior to adulthood, they still have little control over
their health care decisions. The existing law is neither consistent nor
comprehensive. Most importantly, it is not sufficiently respectful of the personhood of
adolescents, who need opportunities to exercise their right to autonomy prior to
adulthood. The general rule is that parents make decisions for their children. A
few states make exceptions for minors who are mature, but most do not. Instead,
mature minors are permitted to make health care decisions on an ad hoc basis,
such as when they contract a venereal disease (and public policy prefers
treatment to parental control). A minor does possess some constitutional rights,
such as the right to an abortion, but such rights are not defined as expansively
as those of the adult. Using sources from law, bioethics and psychology, the article
proposes a comprehensive approach to health care decision making by adolescents.
In particular, the article considers why children, particularly adolescents
capable of adult decision making, should continue to be considered a vulnerable
population in this context. It also considers how much power adolescents should
possess to make decisions in areas such as abortion and contraception,
life-sustaining treatment and participation in clinical trials. The law, in
these and other areas, needs to protect children from harm but, just as
importantly, needs to recognize that some children are capable of making many
health care decisions on their own. These children must be given opportunities
to practice making such important decisions so that they can shape their
identities and become more effective adult decisionmakers.
Return to Schedule | Return to Montreal 2001 Main Page | Return to IALMH Main Page