Article Text

PDF
Paper
To stop or not to stop: dissent and undue burden as reasons to stop participation in paediatric research
  1. Wendy Bos,
  2. Anna Westra,
  3. Inez de Beaufort,
  4. Suzanne van de Vathorst
  1. Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Wendy Bos, Erasmus Medical Center, Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, P.O. Box 2040, Rotterdam 3000 CA, The Netherlands; w.bos.1{at}erasmusmc.nl

Abstract

Children participating in clinical research may show signs of discomfort, discontent, dissent and so on, that cannot be solved by comforting the child. When, and on what ground, should such signs lead to the decision to withdraw the child from the trial? In order to adequately protect children participating in clinical research, it is important to know how to determine during the course of a trial whether participation is still justified. Yet to date, legislation, ethical guidelines and medical ethical literature do not provide sufficient guidance. Therefore, in this paper we aim to provide the required clarity. We identify two types of reasons for taking signs of discomfort, discontent, dissent and so on, very seriously: (1) the principle of respect for the growing autonomy of the child, in those cases where a child expresses a clear, explicit and persistent wish to be withdrawn from the study; and (2) the principle of non-maleficence, in those cases where for an individual child, the research burden appears to be higher than acceptable. We recommend to closely monitor each child during the course of the study, thereby being vigilant to whether the child still wants to continue and to whether the actual burden the child experiences is still acceptable in relation to the permitted levels of burden.

  • Children
  • Research Ethics
  • Clinical trials

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors WB and AW developed the initial idea and design and drafted the paper. IdB and SvdV contributed to the design and critically revised the manuscript. Final approval of the version to be published was provided by all authors.

  • Funding ZonMw. (113203014).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.