Determining risk in pediatric research with no prospect of direct benefit: Time for a national consensus on the interpretation of federal regulations

被引:48
作者
Fisher, Celia B.
Kornetsky, Susan Z.
Prentice, Ernest D.
机构
[1] Fordham Univ, Ctr Eth Educ, Bronx, NY 10458 USA
[2] Childrens Hosp, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[3] Univ Nebraska, Med Ctr, Lincoln, NE 68583 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1080/15265160601171572
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
United States federal regulations for pediatric research with no prospect of direct benefit restrict institutional review board (IRB) approval to procedures presenting: 1) no more than "minimal risk" ( 45CFR46.404); or 2) no more than a "minor increase over minimal risk" if the research is commensurate with the subjects' previous or expected experiences and intended to gain vitally important information about the child's disorder or condition ( 45CFR46.406) (DHHS 2001). During the 25 years since their adoption, these regulations have helped IRBs balance subject protections with the pursuit of scientific knowledge to advance children's welfare. At the same time, inconsistency in IRB application of these regulations to pediatric protocols has been widespread, in part because of the ambiguity of the regulatory language. During the past decade, three federally-charged committees have addressed these ambiguities: 1) the National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee (NHRPAC) (Washington, DC), 2) the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee on the Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children (Washington, DC); and 3) the United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary's Advisory Committee for Human Research Protections (SACHRP) (Washington, DC). The committees have reached similar conclusions on interpretation of language within regulations 45CFR46.404 and 406; these conclusions are remarkably consistent with recent international recommendations and those of the original National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1977) report from which current regulations are based. Drawing on the committees' public reports, this article identifies the ethical issues posed by ambiguities in regulatory language, summarizes the committees' deliberations, and calls for a national consensus on recommended criteria.
引用
收藏
页码:5 / 10
页数:6
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   Risk analysis, uncertainty factors, and the susceptibilities of children [J].
Amler, SN ;
De Rosa, CT ;
Williams-Johnson, MM ;
Jones, DE ;
Amler, RW ;
Wilbur, S .
HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT, 2003, 9 (07) :1701-1711
[2]  
[Anonymous], ETH COND CLIN RES IN
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1977, RES REP
[4]  
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, 2002, INT ETH GUID BIOM RE
[5]  
*DHHS, 2001, FED REGISTER, V46, P8366
[6]  
*DHHS FOOD DRUG AD, INT RUL ADD SAF CHIL
[7]   PET in child psychiatry: The risks and benefits of studying normal healthy children [J].
Ernst, M .
PROGRESS IN NEURO-PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY & BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY, 1999, 23 (04) :561-570
[8]  
FISHER CB, 2005, IRB ETHICS HUMAN RES, V27, P1
[9]   IN-LOCO-PARENTIS - MINIMAL RISK AS AN ETHICAL THRESHOLD FOR RESEARCH UPON CHILDREN [J].
FREEDMAN, B ;
FUKS, A ;
WEIJER, C .
HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, 1993, 23 (02) :13-19
[10]  
JANOFSKY J, 1981, J PEDIATR, V98, P142