HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in ADC Online Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Geisheker, J V Articles by Hill, G Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Geisheker, J V Articles by Hill, G Related Collections Pain Perinatal

US bioethics fall short of world standards

Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Suite 42, 2442 NW Market Street, Seattle Washington 98107, USA; iconbuster@earhlink.net

Keywords: bioethics; circumcision; pain

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In their study of motion resistant pulse oximetry in neonates, Sahni et al¹ obtained approval from their institutional review board and consent from the parents of the infants involved. Nevertheless, the study fails the most basic principles of bioethics, and this calls into question the value of institutional review boards and points to a yawning chasm between American ethical practices and world ethical standards.

The recognised criteria for ethical experimentation are the Nuremberg Code (1947)² and the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) as amended.³ The Nuremberg Code requires the consent of the subject, which obviously could not be obtained in this case. The Declaration of Helsinki provides for the consent of the legal representatives of minor children in certain limited instances:

"For a research subject who is legally incompetent, physically or mentally incapable of giving consent or is a legally incompetent minor, the investigator must obtain informed consent from the legally . . . [Full text of this article]