← Respect · 20 readings

Parenting Journal · Volume 2 · Issue 5 · Licensed source edition

Paediatric Preference Prediction: the Future of Decision-Making for Children?

Originally published 2026-09-09 · Neuroethics
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · DOI 10.1007/s12152-026-09669-x ↗

RespectNormative pediatric bioethics analysisCC BY 4.0
Ask this paper · Find source passages →

AI / system type

Hypothetical narrow AI preference prediction; normative analysis

Family implications

Design, ethics, stakeholder or technical evidence with child/family implications; household benefits are not assumed.

The AI connection

The analysis considers an AI-based pediatric personalized patient-preference predictor modeled on adult proposals.

Why this reading matters

Focuses directly on respecting a developing person when predictive technology could amplify adult authority.

Editorial reading guide · Respect

Could a prediction about my child’s future wishes outweigh what they say now?

The authors question whether predicted adult preferences could justify overriding a child’s current wishes. They argue that prediction cannot itself settle which future preferences matter or substitute for best-interests reasoning.

Study context

The paper analyzes hypothetical cases and a proposed pediatric preference-prediction concept; it includes no empirical family sample or working predictor.

Age / stage: Children and adolescents with different present/future decision-making capacities

Read with three questions

  1. How does predicting an adult’s former wishes differ from predicting a child’s future values?
  2. Which children would create the greatest uncertainty for the proposal?
  3. What moral decisions remain even if predictive accuracy improves?

Keep the limits in view

The pediatric predictor is hypothetical and has no demonstrated accuracy, usability, fairness, or outcome benefit. Illustrative percentages are arguments, not study results, and ethical conclusions depend on contested accounts of present and future interests.

The text below is the original article’s licensed repository edition. Its wording is not rewritten. Use the Paper Agent beside the text to locate evidence; open the source for figures, tables and complete context.

Opening the verified paper and agent…

Checking the article identity, license record, and saved source text.

Open the repository record

Attribution & reuse

Follow the original.

Original authorship, publication date, journal and DOI are preserved. This issue’s TRICK placement and reading questions are editorial additions, not claims made by the original authors.

Dominic James Clifford Wilkinson; Julian Savulescu; Brian Earp (2026). Paediatric Preference Prediction: the Future of Decision-Making for Children? Neuroethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-026-09669-x

Permissions checked against the saved article notice; repository publication notices screened 2026-11-04. This is not a new peer-review decision. The source authors and publishers are not represented as endorsing this issue.