Minimal Risk in Pediatric Research: A Philosophical Review and Reconsideration

References

• Binik, A. 2014. On the minimal risk threshold with children. American Journal of Bioethics 14 (9):3–12. doi:10.1080/15265161.2014.935879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogardus, S. T., E. Holmboe, and J. F. Jekel. 1999. Perils, pitfalls and possibilities in talking about medical risk. JAMA : the Journal of the American Medical Association 281 (11):1037–41. doi:10.1001/jama.281.11.1037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crisp, R. 2013. Well-Being. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-being/
   Google Scholar
• DeGrazia, D. 2003. Common morality, coherence, and the principles of biomedical ethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (3):219–30. doi:10.1353/ken.2003.0020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinberg, J. 1984. Harm to others: The moral limits of the criminal law, 203. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. 2017, January 19. 82 Federal Register 12. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/19/2017-01058/federal-policy-for-the-protection-of-human-subjects.
   Google Scholar
• Firth, R. 1952. Ethical absolutism and the ideal observer. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 12:317–45. doi:10.2307/2103988.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, C. B., S. Z. Kornetsky, and E. 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. doi:10.1080/15265160601171572.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, B., A. Fuks, and C. Weijer. 1993. In loco parentis: Minimal risk as an ethical threshold for research upon children. Hastings Center Report 23 (2):13–19. doi:10.2307/3562813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Princteon, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harman, G. 2000. Moral agent and impartial spectator. In Explaining value and other essays in moral philosophy, 181–95. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heathwood, C. 2006. Desire satisfactionism and hedonism. Philosophical Studies 128:539–63. doi:10.1007/s11098-004-7817-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine (IOM). 2004. The ethical conduct of research involving children, 4. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Janofsky, J., and B. Starfield. 1981. Assessment of risk in research on children. Journal of Pediatrics 98:842–46. doi:10.1016/S0022-3476(81)80865-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonsen, A. 2006. Nontherapeutic research with children: The Ramsey versus McCormick debate. The Journal of Pediatrics 149:S12–S14. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2006.04.044.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawall, J. 2006. On the moral epistemology of ideal observer theories. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9:359–74. doi:10.1007/s10677-006-9016-8.
   Google Scholar
• Kimmelman, J. 2004. Valuing risk. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (4):369–93. doi:10.1353/ken.2004.0041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopelman, L. 2004a. Minimal risk as an international ethical standard in research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3):351–78. doi:10.1080/03605310490500545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kopelman, L. M. 2004b. What conditions justify risky nontherapeutic or ‘no benefit’ pediatric studies: A sliding scale analysis. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (4):749–58. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2004.tb01980.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mill, J. S. 2004. Utilitarianism. In John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham: Utilitarianism and other essays, ed. A. Ryan, (1st published 1861). See chapter 4, 307–14. New York, NY: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, G. E. 1988. Principia Ethica. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (1st published 1902).
   Google Scholar
• National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee (NHRPAC). 2002. Clarifying specific portion of 45 CFR 46 subpart D that governs children’s research [online]. Accessed May 14, 2014. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nhrpac/documents/nhrpac16.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. M. 2011. A relative interpretation for minimal risk is unnecessary and potentially harmful to children: Lessons from the Phambili trial. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):14–16. doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.568588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. M., and L. F. Ross. 2005. In defense of a single standard of research risk for all children. Journal of Pediatrics 147:565–66. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.08.051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Research Involving Children. 1978, January 13. Research involving children: Report and recommendations of the national commission for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research. 43 Federal Register 2083. Codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 46.
   Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B. 2005. Eliminating the daily life risks standard from the definition of minimal risk. Journal of Medical Ethics 31:35–38. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.010470.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, D. B. 2017. The role of intuition in risk/benefit decision-making in human subjects research. Accountability in Research 24 (1):1–29. doi:10.1080/08989621.2016.1198978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rid, A., E. J. Emanuel, and D. Wendler. 2010. Evaluating the risks of clinical research. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association 304 (13):1472–79. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rid, A., and D. Wendler. 2011a. A framework for risk-benefit evaluations in clinical research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (2):141–79. doi:10.1353/ken.2011.0007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rid, A., and D. Wendler. 2011b. A proposal and prototype for a research risk repository to improve the protection of research participants. Clinical Trials 8:705–15. doi:10.1177/1740774511414595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, L. F. 2003. Do healthy children deserve greater protection in medical research? Journal of Pediatrics 142 (2):102–07. doi:10.1067/mpd.2003.84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, J. 2012. The prospects for objectivity in risk assessment. The Journal of Value Inquiry 46 (2):237–53. doi:10.1007/s10790-012-9338-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossi, J., and R. M. Nelson. 2012. Is there an objective way to compare research risks?. Journal of Medical Ethics 38:423–27. doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secretary’s Advisory Committee for Human Research Protections (SACHRP). 2005, July 28. SACHRP chair letter to HHS secretary regarding recommendations [online]. Accessed May 14, 2014. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/sachrpltrtohhssec.html.
   Google Scholar
• Shah, S. 2011. The dangers of using a relative risk standard for minimal risk. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):22–23. doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.572511.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah, S., A. Whittle, B. Wilfond, G. Gensler, and D. Wendler. 2004. How do IRBs apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association 29:476–82. doi:10.1001/jama.291.4.476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrader-Frechette, K. S. 1991. Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M., D. Lewis, and M. Johnston. 1989. Dispositional theories of value. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volumes, 63:89-111+113-137+139-174. doi:10.1093/aristoteliansupp/63.1.89.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, J., C. L. Miller, and G. Gray. 2011. ‘Relative versus absolute standards for everyday risk in adolescent HIV prevention trials: Expanding the debate. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (6):5–13. doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.568576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark, L. 2012. Behind closed doors: IRBs and the making of ethical research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strandberg, C. 2004. In defence of the open question argument. The Journal of Ethics 8:179–96. doi:10.1023/B:JOET.0000018766.62114.75.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, R. A. 1990. Vulnerability in research: A developmental perspective on research risk. Child Development 61:1–16. doi:10.2307/1131043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS). 1983, March 8. Protections for children involved as subjects in research. 45 CFR 46 48 FR 9814-20.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS). 1991, June 18. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. 45 CFR 46 FR 56-117.
   Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). “Minutes of Institutional Review Board (IRB) meetings - Draft guidance for institutions and IRBs”. Accessed November 2015. https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm470046.htm#votehttps://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm470046.htm#vote.
   Google Scholar
• Wendler, D. 2005. Protecting subjects who cannot give consent: Toward a better standard for minimal risk. Hastings Center Report 35 (5):37–43. doi:10.1353/hcr.2005.0087.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendler, D. 2012. A new justification for pediatric research without the potential for clinical benefit. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (1):23–31. doi:10.1080/15265161.2011.634482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendler, D., L. Belsky, K. M. Thompson, and E. J. Emanuel. 2005. Quantifying the federal minimal risk standard: Implications for pediatric research without a prospect of direct benefit. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association 294 (7):826–832.s. doi:10.1001/jama.294.7.826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendler, D., and E. J. Emanuel. 2005. What is a minor increase over minimal risk? Journal of Pediatrics 147:575–78. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.07.013.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendler, D., and S. Varma. 2006. Minimal risk in pediatric research. Journal of Pediatrics 149:855–61. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2006.08.064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westra, A. E., J. M. Wit, R. N. Sukhai, and I. D. De Beaufort. 2011. How best to define the concept of minimal risk. The Journal of Pediatrics 159 (3):496–500. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.05.034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar