�The thorny issue of conducting aesculapian research on children is one of the most difficult ethical debates in health aid today.
In the Pediatric Ethics, Issues, & Commentary column of the July-August 2008 progeny of Pediatric Nursing, author Pam Pieper examines two schools of thought regarding this controversial topic. Central to the debate is whether or not a child's acquiescence to participate in enquiry should be mandated, considering that in some cases, the child may be unable or too offspring to give such acquiescence.
Pieper presents two theories: deontology, an "ethical stance, where one's actions are based on what is morally rectify, irrespective of the consequences." This viewpoint states such research is ethical only when when it potentially benefits the fry and includes the child's consent. The second possibility, utilitarianism, focuses on a course of action that results in the superlative good for the superlative number of people. In other words, research that benefits many children simply possibly puts a few at peril is justified by the final final result. Under this theory, acquiescence is non mandated.
"Children have a great deal been denied the benefits of enquiry advancements because of restrictions against their participation in research," Pieper writes. She adds that some children may take to take part in enquiry and that there should not be sweeping restrictions that contract away their autonomy, specially when others could benefit. Utilitarianism is the more widely accepted perspective, she says, and even when children can't assent, if parental permit and earmark safeguards ar added into the mix, they should still be given the opportunity to participate in studies.
"Ethical Perspectives of Children's Assent for Research Participation: Deontology and Utilitarianism"
Pam Pieper, MSN, ARNP, PNP-BC
Pediatric Nursing, July-August 2008
Pediatric Nursing
More info
