Pediatric research posing a minor increase over minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit: Challenging 45 CFR 46.406

Accountability in Research

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 19-34

  Iltis, Ana ^a  

^a SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Disorder or condition clause; Minimal risk; Minor increase over minimal risk; Pediatric research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ETHICS; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEDIATRICS; PRESCHOOL CHILD; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; HUMANS; PEDIATRICS; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34748878305     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989620601104782     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ackerman, T. (1980). Moral duties of parents and non-therapeutic research procedures involving children, Bioethics Quarterly, 2: 94-111.
2. Bickel, H., Gerrard J., and Hickmans, E. (1953). Influence of phenylalanine intake on phenylketonuria, The Lancet, 265(6790): 812-813.
3. Fisher, R. E. W. (1953). Controls, The Lancet, 265 (6793): 993.
4. Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2004). Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children. Washington, D. C.: The National Academies Press.
5. Kopelman, L. (1989). When is the risk minimal enough for children to be research subjects? In: Children and Health Care: Moral and Social Issues (Kopelman L. M. and Moskop, J.C. eds.). Dordrecth: Kluwer, pp.89-99.
6. Kopelman, L. (2004). What conditions justify risky nontherapeutic or "no benefit" pediatric studies: A sliding scale analysis, J Law, Medicine, & Ethics, 32(4):749-58.
7. McCormick, R. A. (1974). Proxy consent in the experimentation situation, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 18: 2-23.
8. McCormick, R. A. (1976). Experimentation in children: Sharing sociality, Hastings Center Report, 6(6): 41-46.
9. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1977). Report and Recommendations on Research Involving Children. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
10. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. Nelson, R. M. and Ross, L. F. (2005). In defense of a single standard of research risk for all children, J Pediatrics, 147(5): 565-566.
12. OHRP. 2001. Protections for Children in Research. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/reports/ohrp502.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2006).
13. Pappworth, M. H. (1967). Human Guinea Pigs. Boston: Beacon Press.
14. Ramsey, P. (1970). The Patient as Person. New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press.
15. Ross, L. F. (2002). Correspondence: Protecting research subjects, N Engl J Med, 346(26): 2094.
16. Ross, L. F. (2003). Do healthy children deserve greater protection in medical research? J Pediatrics 142(2): 108-112.
17. Ross, L. F. (2004a). Convening a 407 panel for research not otherwise approvable: "Precursors to diabetes in Japanese American youth" as a Case Study, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 14(2): 165-186.
18. Ross, L. F. (2004b). Children in medical research: Balancing protection and access: Has the pendulum swung too far? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 47(4): 519-536.
19. Ross, L. F. (2005). Lessons learned from the 407 Process, Health Matrix, 15(2): 401-421.
20. Shah, S. (2003). The 'subject's condition' requirement: Unjustified exceptionalism in the Federal Regulations, ASBH Exchange, 6(1): 5-6.
21. Wendler, D., Emanuel, E. J. (2005). What is a "minor" increase over minimal risk? J Pediatrics, 147(5): 575-578.