As more parents share their child’s cancer journey on social media, experts warn of complex ethical issues surrounding consent, privacy, and the child’s future autonomy, prompting calls for cautious, informed discussions with healthcare professionals.
Parents who share their child’s cancer journey online may believe they are offering comfort, building community and raising awareness. Yet the practice known as “sharenting” also opens difficult ethical questions about consent, privacy and a child’s future control over their own story, according to Rachel Howard, a physician in training at the University of Ottawa writing for Impact Ethics.
Howard argues that the central concern is autonomy. A child whose diagnosis, treatment or appearance has been documented publicly on social media may later disagree with that exposure, especially once they are old enough to understand what was shared. She points to the idea of a child’s “rights-in-trust”, a concept associated with philosopher Joel Feinberg, in which adults are expected to preserve a child’s ability to make their own choices later in life rather than foreclose them early.
Privacy is another major issue. Howard notes that children’s health information is treated as especially sensitive in law and ethics, and says the growing power of artificial intelligence makes online disclosure even more consequential because posts can be collected, analysed and repurposed in ways families may not anticipate. A separate Frontiers scoping review published this year reaches a similar conclusion, finding that sharenting can support family expression and public awareness while still undermining children’s privacy, autonomy and digital identity.
Howard does not dismiss the appeal of posting at all. For many families facing childhood cancer, she writes, sharing can be a source of solidarity, practical support and emotional release during an isolating ordeal. The harder question, she says, is whether paediatric oncologists should address the issue directly. Her view is that they should, at minimum, raise the topic with families, explain possible harms and encourage informed discussion rather than taking a blanket anti-sharenting position.
That conversation, Howard argues, should be tailored to the child’s age and capacity. Where a child cannot yet decide for themselves, she says doctors already counsel parents on issues that affect a child’s future autonomy, such as fertility preservation. Where a child can participate, the goal should be to create space for the young patient’s own views on what, if anything, should be made public. The broader message, she concludes, is one of caution without condemnation: sharenting may have real benefits, but it should be treated as an ethical decision, not a casual one.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical judgment, advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
