rss
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89:F563 doi:10.1136/adc.2003.047373
  • LETTER

US bioethics fall short of world standards

  1. J V Geisheker,
  2. G Hill
  1. Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Suite 42, 2442 NW Market Street, Seattle Washington 98107, USA; iconbusterearhlink.net

      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 authorized representative in accordance with applicable law. These groups should not be included in research unless the research is necessary to promote the health of the population represented and this research cannot instead be performed on legally competent persons.”3

      This provision is inapplicable in this instance because this research did not promote the health of the population group represented and because this research easily could have been performed on legally competent adults.

      Male neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision violates basic human rights to security of the person and to freedom from torture, inhuman, or degrading procedures. A recent study found that neonatal circumcision fails all ethical tests.4 Moreover, the Norwegian Council for Medical Ethics advised the Norwegian Medical Association that the circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, has no established medical benefit, and causes pain even with the use of local anaesthesia.5 Non-therapeutic circumcision of children violates articles 1, 2, and 20 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.6

      The institutional review board must be more than a rubber stamp to approve whatever is proposed. Clearly, world ethical standards were not considered in this instance. It is time for American bioethics boards and committees to adopt world standards.

      References

      This Article

      Services

      1. Request permissions

      Responses

      1. Submit a response
      2. No responses published

      Social bookmarking

      Latest from Education & Practice

      Latest from Education & Practice

      Register for free content

      Free sample
      This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of ADC Fetal & Neonatal.
      View free sample issue >>

      Free archive
      The full back archive is now available for ADC Fetal & Neonatal. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
      Register to access the free archive >>

      Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

    • Paediatrics and Paediatric Surgery Jobs

      Paediatrics and Paediatric Surgery Jobs