Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-pcjlm Total loading time: 0.437 Render date: 2021-04-20T11:36:07.829Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Interpretation of the Subjects' Condition Requirement: A Legal Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Extract

Clinical research with children generates special ethical concern, raising the need for additional protections beyond those for research with competent adults. Most guidelines permit research with children when it offers a prospect of direct benefit, or poses minimal risk. Unlike many other guidelines, the U.S. federal regulations also allow institutional review boards (IRBs) to approve pediatric research that does not offer a prospect of direct benefit when the risks are no greater than a minor increase over minimal risk. To approve research in this category, IRBs must find that two additional conditions obtain:

1). The intervention or procedure presents experiences to subjects that are reasonably commensurate with those inherent in their actual or expected medical, dental, psychological, social, or educational situations; and 2). The intervention or procedure is likely to yield generalizable knowledge about the subjects disorder or condition which is of vital importance for the understanding or amelioration of the subjects disorder or condition.

Type
Independent
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

45 C.F.R. 46.406.Google Scholar
Kopelman, L. M., “When Can Children with Conditions Be in No-Benefit, Higher-Hazard Pediatric Studies?” American Journal of Bioethics 7, no. 7 (2007): 510; Ross, L. F., “The Participation of Children in Nontherapeutic Diabetes Research in the US,” Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology & Metabolism 3, no. 3 (2007): 378379; Glass, K. C. and Binik, A., “Rethinking Risk in Pediatric Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 3 (2008): 567576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. (Glass and Binik).Google Scholar
National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee, Report Clarifying Specific Portion of 45 CFR 46 Subpart D that Governs Children's Research, 2002, at 3, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/nhrpac/documents/nhrpac16.pdf> (last visited April 29, 2010) (hereinafter Advisory Committee). Note: This report expressly indicates that it does not represent the official views of the OHRP.+(last+visited+April+29,+2010)+(hereinafter+Advisory+Committee).+Note:+This+report+expressly+indicates+that+it+does+not+represent+the+official+views+of+the+OHRP.>Google Scholar
See Kopelman, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine, Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Segall, E. J., “Justice Scalia, Critical Legal Studies, and the Rule of Law,” George Washington Law Review 62 (1994): 9911042, at 998.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Arnold v. County of Nassau, 252 F.3d 599, 602 (2d Cir. 2001); Ayala-Chavez v. INS, 945 F.2d 288, 294 (9th Cir. 1991); Kyle v. Director, OWCP, 819 F.2d 139, 142 (6th Cir. 1987).Google Scholar
Cross, F. B., The Theory and Practice of Statutory Interpretation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frickey, P. P., “From the Big Sleep to the Big Heat: The Revival of Theory in Statutory Interpretation,” Minnesota Law Review 77 (1992): 241267, at 248.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A., Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
Microsoft Corp. v. Comm'r, 311 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Williams, D. R., Sternthal, M., and Wright, R. J., “Social Determinants: Taking the Social Context of Asthma Seriously,” Pediatrics 123, Supp. 3 (2009): S174S184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Segall, , supra note 7.Google Scholar
Hurst, J., Dealing with Statutes (New York: Columbia, 1982).Google Scholar
Baltimore & Ohio Railway Co. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325, 331 (1957).Google Scholar
See Segall, , supra note 7.Google Scholar
See supra note 1.Google Scholar
Gardebring v. Jenkins, 485 U.S. 415, 430 (1988); Moore v. Han-non Food Serv., Inc., 317 F.3d 489, 494–96 (5th Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
Email from Kristina Borrar, Office for Human Research Protections, September 25, 2008.Google Scholar
See Advisory Committee, supra note 4.Google Scholar
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (U.S. 2006).Google Scholar
National Research Act at § 202(a)(1)(A) (1974), available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/documents/19780721.pdf> (last visited April 30, 2010).+(last+visited+April+30,+2010).>Google Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Report and Recommendations on Research Involving Children, September 6, 1977.Google Scholar
“Proposed Regulations on Research Involving Children, Part V,” Federal Register (July 21, 1978): 3178631794, at 31788.Google Scholar
See supra note 27.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.405.Google Scholar
Curran v. Bosze, 141 Ill. 2d 473, 497 (Ill. 1990) (holding that “a parent or guardian may give consent on behalf of a minor daughter or son for the child to donate bone marrow to a sibling, only when to do so would be in the minor's best interest.”).Google Scholar
See supra note 35; Peerzada, J. M. and Wendler, D., “Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Research with Pediatric Donors: When Can Institutional Review Boards Approve It?” Transplantation 81, no. 12 (2006): 16161620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, B., Prentice, E., Reitemeier, P., “The Use of Normal Children as Participants in Research on Therapy,” IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 18, no. 3 (1996): 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Medicine, Ethical Conduct of Research Involving Children, March 24, 2004.Google Scholar
King, N. M. P., “Defining and Describing Benefit Appropriately in Clinical Trials,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28, no. 4 (2000): 332343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.407.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 1 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 01st January 2021 - 20th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Interpretation of the Subjects' Condition Requirement: A Legal Perspective
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Interpretation of the Subjects' Condition Requirement: A Legal Perspective
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Interpretation of the Subjects' Condition Requirement: A Legal Perspective
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *