Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25916607›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2016

Child's objection to non-beneficial research: capacity and distress based models.

Marcin Waligora, Joanna Różyńska, Jan Piasecki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marcin WaligoraDepartment of Philosophy and Bioethics, Faculty of Health Science, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Michałowskiego 12, 31-126, Krakow, Poland. waligora.marcin@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1553-1416
Joanna RóżyńskaDepartment of Ethics, Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmieście 3, 00-927, Warsaw, Poland.
Jan PiaseckiDepartment of Philosophy and Bioethics, Faculty of Health Science, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Michałowskiego 12, 31-126, Krakow, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A child's objection, refusal and dissent regarding participation in non-beneficial biomedical research must be respected, even when the parents or legal representatives have given their permission. There is, however, no consensus on the definition and criteria of a meaningful and valid child's objection. The aim of this article is to clarify this issue. In the first part we describe the problems of a child's assent in research. In the second part we distinguish and analyze two models of a child's objection to research: the capacity-based model and the distress-based model. In the last part we present arguments for a broader and unified understanding of a child's objection within regulations and practices. This will strengthen children's rights and facilitate the entire process of assessment of research protocols.

Indexed as

Mental CompetencyBiomedical ResearchChildDecision MakingHumansInformed ConsentPediatricsResearch SubjectsAssentChildrenDissentIncompetent subjectsNon-beneficial researchPediatricsProxy consentVulnerable subjects

Identifiers

PMID25916607
PMCPMC4805702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.