David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38 (2):365-373 (2010)
The U.S. Federal regulations allow institutional review boards (IRBs) to approve non-beneficial pediatric research when the risks are a minor increase over minimal, provided that the research is likely to develop generalizable knowledge about the subjects' disorder or condition. This “subjects' condition” requirement is quite controversial; commentators have argued for a variety of interpretations. Despite this considerable disagreement in the literature, there have not been any attempts to apply principles of legal interpretation to determine how the subjects' condition requirement should be understood
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Nancy M. P. King (2000). Defining and Describing Benefit Appropriately in Clinical Trials. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (4):332-343.
Bruce Gordon, Ernest Prentice & Paul Reitemeier (forthcoming). The Use of Normal Children as Participants in Research on Therapy. IRB: Ethics & Human Research.
Loretta M. Kopelman (2007). When Can Children with Conditions Be in No-Benefit, Higher-Hazard Pediatric Studies? American Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):15 – 17.
Citations of this work BETA
Seema Shah (2011). The Dangers of Using a Relative Risk Standard for Minimal Risk. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):22 - 23.
Similar books and articles
Christoph Kelp (2009). Knowledge and Safety. Journal of Philosophical Research 34:21-31.
Celia B. Fisher, Susan Z. Kornetsky & Ernest D. Prentice (2007). Determining Risk in Pediatric Research with No Prospect of Direct Benefit: Time for a National Consensus on the Interpretation of Federal Regulations. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):5 – 10.
Andrew McRae & Charles Weijer, U.S. Federal Regulations for Emergency Research: A Practical Guide and Commentary.
David Wendler & Emily Abdoler (2011). Does It Matter Whether Investigators Intend to Benefit Research Subjects? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (4):353-370.
Thaddeus Metz (2003). The Immortality Requirement for Life's Meaning. Ratio 16 (2):161–177.
Ari VanderWalde & Seth Kurzban (2011). Paying Human Subjects in Research: Where Are We, How Did We Get Here, and Now What? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39 (3):543-558.
Andrew McLaughlin (1970). Rationality and Total Evidence. Philosophy of Science 37 (2):271-278.
Rachel E. Dew (2007). Informed Consent for Research in Borderline Personality Disorder. BMC Medical Ethics 8 (1):1-4.
Added to index2010-08-11
Total downloads6 ( #479,735 of 1,911,606 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #457,720 of 1,911,606 )
How can I increase my downloads?