Abstract
This article proposes a consequentialist approach to the problem of children’s assent in research. To date, one of the main controversies concerning assent has been about the necessary conditions for making a morally significant decision. Some argue that to make a morally significant decision a child has to understand the abstract concept of altruism. Therefore it is crucial to determine at what stage of development this ability arises. Others argue that the crucial condition is to determine when children gain the capacities for making autonomous decisions regarding participation in research. Since these philosophical and psychological controversies are quite persistent, a calculation of the benefits and harms might be essential for implementing a uniform policy. We argue that the benefits of a properly applied policy requiring assent from all capable children is more beneficial than a policy setting a high age threshold for assent. We also suggest that the consequentialist argument depends on empirical premises that might be either supported or proven false by empirical research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Alderson, P. 1992. In the genes or in the stars? Children’s competence to consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 18(3): 119–124.
Alderson, P. 2007. Competent children? Minors’ consent to health care treatment and research. Social Science & Medicine 65(11): 2272–2283.
Alderson, P., J. Hawthorne, and M. Killen. 2005. The participation rights of premature babies. International Journal of Children’s Rights 13: 31–50.
Baines, P. 2011. Assent for children’s participation in research is incoherent and wrong. Archives of Disease in Childhood 96(10): 960–962.
Baylis, F., and J. Downie. 2003. The limits of altruism and arbitrary age limits. American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 19–21.
Diekema, D.S. 2003. Taking children seriously: What’s so important about assent? American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 25–26.
Fisher, H. 2013. Assent to participate in healthcare research. Current Allergy & Clinical Immunology 26(3): 145–150.
Giesbertz, N.A., A.L. Bredenoord, and J.J. van Delden. 2014. Clarifying assent in pediatric research. European Journal of Human Genetics 22(2): 266–269.
Joffe, S. 2003. Rethink “affirmative agreement”, but abandon “assent”. American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 9–11.
Kimberly, M.B., K.S. Hoehn, C. Feudtner, R.M. Nelson, and M. Schreiner. 2006. Variation in standards of research compensation and child assent practices: A comparison of 69 institutional review board-approved informed permission and assent forms for 3 multicenter pediatric clinical trials. Pediatrics 117(5): 1706–1711.
Kon, A.A. 2006. Assent in pediatric research. Pediatrics 117(5): 1806–1810.
McGee, E.M. 2003. Altruism, children, and nonbeneficial research. American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 21–23.
Miller, V.A., and R.M. Nelson. 2006. A developmental approach to child assent for nontherapeutic research. Journal of Pediatrics 149(Suppl 1): S25–S30.
Nelson, R.M. 2007. Minimal risk, yet again. Journal of Pediatrics 150(6): 570–572.
Nelson, R.M., and W.W. Reynolds. 2003. We should reject passive resignation in favor of requiring the assent of younger children for participation in nonbeneficial research. American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 11–13.
Piasecki, J., M. Waligora, and V. Dranseika. 2015. Non-beneficial pediatric research: Individual and social interests. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 18(1): 103–112.
Rotnem, D., D.J. Cohen, R. Hintz, and M. Genel. 1979. Psychological sequelae of relative “Treatment Failure” for children receiving human growth hormone replacement. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 18(3): 505–520.
Sibley, A., M. Sheehan, and A.J. Pollard. 2012. Assent is not consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 38(1): 3.
Tait, A.R., T. Voepel-Lewis, and S. Malviya. 2003a. Do they understand? (part I): Parental consent for children participating in clinical anesthesia and surgery research. Anesthesiology 98(3): 603–608.
Tait, A.R., T. Voepel-Lewis, and S. Malviya. 2003b. Do they understand? (part II): Assent of children participating in clinical anesthesia and surgery research. Anesthesiology 98(3): 609–614.
Tauer, C.A. 1994. The NIH, trials of growth hormone for short stature. IRB 16(3): 1–9.
Waligora, M., V. Dranseika, and J. Piasecki. 2014. Child’s assent in research: Age threshold or personalisation? BMC Medical Ethics 15: 44.
Warren, M.A. 2005. Moral status. Obligations to persons and other living things (issues in biomedical ethics). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Wendler, D. 2006. Assent in paediatric research: Theoretical and practical considerations. Journal of Medical Ethics 32(4): 229–234.
Wendler, D. 2008. The assent requirement in pediatric research. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, ed. E.J. Emanuel, A. Robert, C. Grady, R.K. Lie, F.G. Miller, and D. Wendler, 661–669. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Wendler, D., and S. Shah. 2003. Should children decide whether they are enrolled in nonbeneficial research? American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 1–7.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ben Koschalka for linguistic editing. This project was funded by the National Science Centre, Poland, DEC-2011/03/D/HS1/01695.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Piasecki, J., Waligora, M., Dranseika, V. (2016). Assent in Paediatric Research and Its Consequences. In: Strech, D., Mertz, M. (eds) Ethics and Governance of Biomedical Research. Research Ethics Forum, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28731-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28731-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28729-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28731-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)