A Defense of The-Risks-of-Daily-Life

Overview

Journal Kennedy Inst Ethics J

Publisher Johns Hopkins University Press

Specialty Medical Ethics

Date 2017 Oct 10

PMID 28989167

Authors

Ariella Binik

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Research examining the safe and effective treatment of diseases and disorders affecting children offers one of the best prospects for improving the medical treatment of children. But the inclusion of children in research raises difficult ethical questions, among them: To how much risk is it permissible to expose children in research? Various thresholds have been proposed to constrain research risks that do not offer children the prospect of direct medical benefit. These proposals include limiting research risks to (1) the risks of routine medical examinations, (2) the risks of participation in charitable activities, (3) the risks of family life, and (4) the risks-of-daily-life. I examine which, if any, of these proposals is defensible. I argue that only the risks-of-daily-life threshold is defensible and I offer a new justification for this risk threshold. I argue that the risks of daily life are justifiable because they are part of a reasonable trade-off between personal safety and our ability to pursue meaningful lives.

References

Shirkey H . Therapeutic orphans--everybody's business. Ann Pharmacother. 2006; 40(6):1174. DOI: 10.1345/aph.140023. View

Weijer C . The ethical analysis of risk. J Law Med Ethics. 2001; 28(4):344-61. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2000.tb00686.x. View

Binik A, Weijer C . Why the debate over minimal risk needs to be reconsidered. J Med Philos. 2014; 39(4):387-405. DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhu020. View

Spriggs M, Caldwell P . The ethics of paediatric research. J Paediatr Child Health. 2011; 47(9):664-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2011.02166.x. View

Freedman B, Fuks A, Weijer C . In loco parentis. Minimal risk as an ethical threshold for research upon children. Hastings Cent Rep. 1993; 23(2):13-9. View

Ackerman T . Fooling ourselves with child autonomy and assent in nontherapeutic clinical research. Clin Res. 1979; 27(5):345-8. View

Wendler D, Glantz L . A standard for assessing the risks of pediatric research: pro and con. J Pediatr. 2007; 150(6):579-82. PMC: 2062570. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.02.018. View

Hope T, McMillan J . Challenge studies of human volunteers: ethical issues. J Med Ethics. 2004; 30(1):110-6. PMC: 1757139. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2003.004440. View

Wendler D, Belsky L, Thompson K, Emanuel E . Quantifying the federal minimal risk standard: implications for pediatric research without a prospect of direct benefit. JAMA. 2005; 294(7):826-32. DOI: 10.1001/jama.294.7.826. View

10.

Miller P, Weijer C . Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects. J Med Ethics. 2006; 32(9):542-7. PMC: 2563395. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.014670. View

11.

Freedman B, Fuks A, Weijer C . Demarcating research and treatment: a systematic approach for the analysis of the ethics of clinical research. Clin Res. 1992; 40(4):653-60. View

12.

Weijer C, Miller P . When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits?. Nat Med. 2004; 10(6):570-3. DOI: 10.1038/nm0604-570. View

13.

Ackerman T . Moral duties of parents and nontherapeutic clinical research procedures involving children. Bioethics Q. 1980; 2(2):94-111. DOI: 10.1007/BF00915263. View

14.

Nelson R . Minimal risk, yet again. J Pediatr. 2007; 150(6):570-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.03.040. View

15.

Freedman B . A moral theory of informed consent. Hastings Cent Rep. 1975; 5(4):32-9. View

16.

Ackerman T . The ethics of drug research in children. Paediatr Drugs. 2001; 3(1):29-41. DOI: 10.2165/00128072-200103010-00003. View

17.

Resnik D . Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk. J Med Ethics. 2005; 31(1):35-8. PMC: 1734001. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2004.010470. View

18.

McCormick R . Proxy consent in the experimentation situation. Perspect Biol Med. 1974; 18(1):2-20. View

19.

Wendler D . Protecting subjects who cannot give consent: toward a better standard for "minimal" risks. Hastings Cent Rep. 2005; 35(5):37-43. View

20.

Wendler D . Three steps to protecting pediatric research participants from excessive risks. PLoS Clin Trials. 2006; 1(5):e25. PMC: 1584254. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pctr.0010025. View