AbstractThis thesis is a contribution to the ethical justification for clinical research with children. A research subject’s participation in a trial is usually justified, in part, by informed consent. Informed consent helps to uphold the moral principle of respect for persons. But children’s limited ability to make informed choices gives rise to a problem. It is unclear what, if anything, justifies their participation in research. Some research ethicists propose to resolve this problem by appealing to social utility, proxy consent, arguments explaining why it is permissible to expose children to some harm, and an argument concerning the appropriate balance between research harms and benefits. I argue that each of these is a necessary part of the justification for research with children, but that the argument concerning harms and benefits is under-developed. It relies on the concept of minimal risk, but minimal risk is inadequately justified. I propose an interpretation of minimal risk. I defend the idea that minimal risk should be interpreted according to the risks of daily life. I reject the most prominent defense of daily life, which claims that daily risks are morally relevant because they replace, rather than add to, the risks a child would ordinarily face. Instead, I propose that these risks are part of a reasonable trade-off between personal safety and our ability to pursue meaningful lives. I then examine whose daily life should be captured in the concept of minimal risk. I reject arguments that minimal risk should refer to healthy children or the subjects of the research and propose instead that the referent should be children who are not unduly burdened by their lives. I argue that children are not unduly burdened when they fare well and defend the idea that children fare well when they possess sufficiently high degrees of the substantive goods of childhood. I conclude by analyzing a controversial case study using my interpretation of minimal risk. I draw on this case to argue that my interpretation offers clear guidance for research ethics review and contributes to a determination that is more plausible than its rivals.
Similar books and articles
Why the Debate Over Minimal Risk Needs to Be Reconsidered.Ariella Binik & Charles Weijer - 2014 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (4):387-405.
Forschung an Minderjährigen Im Internationalen Vergleich: Bilanz Und Zukunftsperspektiven. [REVIEW]Matthias Dahl & Claudia Wiesemann - 2001 - Ethik in der Medizin 13 (1-2):87-110.
Pediatric Participation in Non-Therapeutic Research.Marilyn C. Morris - 2012 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 40 (3):665-672.
Defining the Boundaries of a Right to Adequate Protection: A New Lens on Pediatric Research Ethics.David DeGrazia, Michelle Groman & Lisa M. Lee - 2017 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 42 (2):132-153.
Risk Standards for Pediatric Research: Rethinking The.David Wendler - 2004 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (2):187-198.
Improving the Helsinki Declaration's Guidance on Research in Incompetent Subjects.Anna Eva Westra & Inez de Beaufort - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (3):278-280.
Can Informed Consent to Research Be Adapted to Risk?Danielle Bromwich & Annette Rid - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (7):521-528.
Towards an Alternative Account for Defining Acceptable Risk in Non-Beneficial Paediatric Research.Lignou Sapfo - 2016 - In Ethics and Governance of Biomedical Research: Theory and Practice.
Minimal Risk as an International Ethical Standard in Research.Loretta M. Kopelman - 2004 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3):351 – 378.
Eliminating the Daily Life Risks Standard From the Definition of Minimal Risk.D. B. Resnik - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (1):35-38.
Involving Children in Non-Therapeutic Research: On the Development Argument. [REVIEW]Linus Broström & Mats Johansson - 2014 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17 (1):53-60.
Pediatric Magnetic Resonance Research and the Minimal-Risk Standard.Matthias Schmidt, Jennifer Marshall, Jocelyn Downie & Michael Hadskis - 2011 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 33 (5):1-6.
Parents' Perspectives on the Consent Approach for Minimal-Risk Research Involving Children.Melissa Cameron, Lauren Marsillio, Linda Cushman & Marilyn Morris - 2011 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 33 (6):6-13.
On the Alleged Right to Participate in High‐Risk Research.Joanna Różyńska - 2015 - Bioethics 29 (7):451-461.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Defining Minimal Risk and the Clinical Disconnect.Mark D. Fox, Michael R. Gomez & Ric T. Munoz - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (9):15-17.
References found in this work
Reasons and Persons.Joseph Margolis - 1986 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (2):311-327.
Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach.Martha C. Nussbaum - 2000 - Cambridge University Press.