Clinical Testing On Children

Have you or anyone around you ever been involved in an experiment that some would call unwanted or unethical? Perhaps maybe even it happening to young children, It may surprise you how often unethical experimenting has been documented throughout the nation no less worldwide, and no less to very young children. This has been happening for years throughout history and still even today. However, this is a very highly debated topic as what someone would constitute a certain experiment unethical, others may count it as perfectly normal. Whether it is the case of Dr. Lauretta Bender, or the ever so famous case of the University of Iowa Speech therapy experiment, you are sure to find various amount of cases of unethical

According to Beauchamp and Childress, the principle of autonomy asserts that a capable and competent individual is free to determine, and to act in accordance with, a self-chosen plan (Beauchamp and Childress as cited in Keating and Smith, 2010). Determining a patient's competence is critical in striking a proper balance between respecting the autonomy of patients who are capable of making informed decisions and protecting those who are not fully capable (Appelbaum, 2007). Tagging children incompetent solely on the basis of their age and not involving them in decision making regarding their health is violation of children's human right. Obtaining consent from parents, rather than children, negates one of the most important principles of medical ethics, which is patient autonomy. Nurses are obligated to promote the health of children by embracing children's right. Nurses' duties which stem out of respect for autonomy include both duties to ensure children's self determination is respected and to refrain from practices that interfere with the children's right of decision making (CARNA,

No one can unequivocally say that the children all had independent observers looking out for the best interests of the children. It inexcusable to not have followed federal law “because researchers felt the pressure of a medical crisis and knew there was great uncertainty as to how children would react to AIDS medications that were often toxic for adults” (Solomon, 2005). One of most troubling aspect of the article is then the inconsistency in whether risk of side effects where adequately conveyed to the children or their legal guardians. The inability to properly monitor for potential side effects in foster care children, should have made foster care children unfit candidates for a research study. Once resources became too scarce to be able to protect the safety of foster care children, the research should not have continued. The lack of transparency of the research information such as drug dosages, side effects or deaths is also troubling. Researchers cite medical privacy laws when they already violated federal laws by utilizing foster care

This temptation happens when the research question, such as a cure for cancer, is extremely important and the answer could save lives. If the investigators cared more about the scientific or medical advancement than the well-being of their participants, they would cross a line that prohibits treating human subjects as a means to an end. When this line is crossed, there is little left to protect patients from a callous disregard of their welfare for the sake of research goals. Informed consent would not matter because of the unbalanced relationship between the knowledge and authority among the researcher and the subject. Approval by an institutional board, although it is important, can be subject to change in its responsiveness to patients’ interests when they conflict with the welfares of the researchers. Going back to Paul’s case, he agrees to enter a clinical trial which was suggested by his oncologist. The study, that Paul has agreed to enter, has claimed that this research team has created a new drug that may be on its way to cure cancer. Obviously to a father and husband, this trial looks very appealing. However, the researchers knowingly form two groups that will compare two treatments. What Paul doesn’t know, is that one of the treatments is better than the other. One group will receive this new drug and the other group will receive a placebo. Comparing this new treatment

The ethical issues involved in this topic include age limits, medical ethics, informed consent, and autonomy. It is unethical and immoral to allow adolescents to make their own medical decisions, because the judgment and capacity to make coherent decisions is unstable. However, adolescents should be involved and have a voice in the process of decision making, nonetheless I believe that the concluding medical decision should be made by the guardian and the doctor. An adolescent is between the ages of thirteen and nineteen. Society permits the legal determination of decision making for health care at the age of eighteen years. It is very important to consider developmental issues which will influence both reasoning and information processing, the brain not being fully developed causes a sense of a lost identity, and low self esteem challenges adolescents to develop a logical decision. An adolescent brain is not yet fully developed, the lack of grey matter and an

To address the first issue, it should be noted that there are many more resources available to parents today online which they can use to gain background information on diseases and treatments, including websites like the American Cancer Society’s. Also, many parents make an effort to see more than one specialist when discussing treatment options. Oftentimes, parents will ask three different doctors for treatment plans based on the same symptoms and end up with three different treatment plans. The discrepancy between the medical personnel forces the need for a third party to make a decision in the child’s best interest and the third party should be the parents. To address the second issue, cases where HIPAA applies to the treatment of minors are rare, and even more rare in the cases of serious diseases. HIPAA allows for privacy between the minor patient and the doctor only when pertaining to concerns about sexual activity, pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases. The treatment of these concerns seldom are important in the treatment of other terminal illnesses, making the argument negligible. However, if the doctor truly believes the parents’ lack of knowledge is misguiding their judgment, then they can take the case to court and fight to gain legal guardianship of the child for the duration of the treatment. It was for these few cases that child abuse and neglect was extended to medical care in the court

Intro: Parents will often refuse to treat their children with modern medical sciences that could save their child, but how they go about refusing it makes it very frustrating for the government to intervene.

The Willowbrook hepatitis experiments were conducted from the years 1966 to 1963 by Dr. Saul Krugman and during those 3 years approximately seven hundred children were infected with either hepatitis A or hepatitis B. These mentally handicapped students at Willowbrook State School were wrongfully treated and infected in an effort to protect the children from further harmful infections. The children of Willowbrook were harmed, parents were not given proper information before they provided consent, and the participants were very much deceived. The Society for Research in Child Development has many principles for the standards in research, many of which have been violated by Dr. Saul Krugman and his team during the Willowbrook hepatitis experiments.

The four ethical principles of Beauchamp and Childress’s framework are essential in the medical decision making for adolescent patients. Those bioethics principles include justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy (Ishibashi, Lewis, & Baker, 2016). Generally, all patients regardless of their age should be involved in their care along with their families. Moreover, patients are entitled to certain degree of autonomy or assent according to their cognitive levels, which involve self-determination of providing informed consent and accepting or refusing treatment (Ivey & Browen, 2012). For many years, there was a growing literature to support adolescences involvement in clinical decision making of their care. In 2000, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child added articles 12 and 13 states that all children have the right to convey their thoughts and express their opinion openly. Those articles obligate governments to establish reinforcement of autonomy. In light of the ethical and legal obligations pediatric health care providers modified the respect of minor’s autonomy principle. This modification addresses the developmental cognitive capacity in adolescent population to establish the legal responsibility of minor’s decision making. Adolescents intellectual growth and ability to analyze all the benefits, risks and treatment goals must be

There should not be interference from parents, doctors, or the legal system if a minor does not want a specific type of treatment. All that should be done for the minor is to make sure that they understand the possible risks of forgoing treatment. Autonomy and justice are the ethical principles that should be applied to this policy. Autonomy is the right to making informed and rational decisions (Bioethic Tools). If the patient is aware of the possible dangers of not getting certain medical attention and is a competent individual and they still refuse, then their autonomy should be respected. Justice is the right to being treated fairly and equally (Bioethic Tools). If a minor if forced to undergo any type of medical procedure simply because they are minors who supposedly cannot make decisions without the help of adults is injustice. Everyone should be treated fairly and equally regardless of age. Any medical treatment that is unwanted by a patient and is performed anyway is a violation of their rights and is extremely

While parents have their kids engaged into the drug treatment they should be aware of the long term effects on the kids. We have to take into consideration that your brain isn’t fully developed until you are twenty six years old, but we are giving these drugs to kids as young as

The ethical issue lies in the doctors and parents not necessarily being “informed voters”. For example, one of the doctors, listed as treating a patient, had never before actually administered

There are many legal and ethical situations that healthcare providers will be faced with when providing medical treatment to either a child or an elderly adult. While there is often much discussion regarding the elderly and do not resuscitate orders, there are often times when the decisions for health care of a child may be overlooked. Some of the legal issues that may be faced by healthcare professionals are informed consent, confidentiality, reproductive services and child abuse. Patients have the right to decide what is done to their own bodies, but for children under eighteen, their parents decide for them. A major issue faced by healthcare professionals is parental refusal for treatment. Healthcare providers will be faced with many conflicting ethical and legal situations regarding refusal of a minor’s healthcare and treatment. These issues

According to International Society of Pediatric Oncology, Involving children in discussion about their own health and treatment is an ethical obligation, contributes to improved outcome and demonstrates value and respect to child's opinion. It is ethically physician role to assess child's mental development and willingness to understand the provided information during decision (Ruhe et al., 2016). On another study, Ruhe et al., 2016, reported that children found participation in pediatric oncology communication and decision making difficult and complex experience, due to strange information provided, feeling of overlooked, and the pressure of decision making. Despite these difficulties, children considered their involvement in medical decision as important because they were the ones affected by the disease (Ruhe et al., 2016). Further, children's maturity and cognitive abilities have an influence on their ability to recognize their illness and the risks and benefits of medical treatment (Ruhe et al.,

Describe two reasons why pediatric clinical trials are ethically problematic? Clinical trial is unique way to find out what works and what doesn’t and child population is the one which is under continuous developmental and physiological transition. “Children are not little adults, they are unique. ”[1]