Addressing complex ethical issues in the treatment of children and adolescents with eating disorders: application of a framework for ethical decision‐making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethically problematic situations frequently arise in the care of children and adolescents with eating disorders. The younger person with anorexia nervosa can often deteriorate quickly, therefore the child who is in denial with respect to the seriousness of her condition and/or markedly ambivalent regarding renourishment is at grave risk. Involuntary treatment is likely to be a consideration during such a medical crisis. In this paper we outline an ethical decision-making framework that can assist the clinician in engaging the young patient and her family well in advance of a crisis, so that decisions can be made at a time when recourse to establishing incompetency or enforcing involuntary treatment are unnecessary. We have adopted a narrative approach in our application of the decision-making framework, and safety is emphasized as the central concept underlying the application of this model. Finally, a number of recommendations are made regarding application of the ethical decision-making framework with younger persons. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and Eating Disorders Association.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".