Interpretation of the Subjects' Condition Requirement: A Legal Perspective

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)
DOI 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00495.x
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,208
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Defining and Describing Benefit Appropriately in Clinical Trials.Nancy M. P. King - 2000 - Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (4):332-343.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
The Dangers of Using a Relative Risk Standard for Minimal Risk.Seema Shah - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):22 - 23.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

6 ( #560,834 of 2,172,870 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #324,901 of 2,172,870 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums