Critical Legal Analysis

Critical Legal Analysis
Discussion Post DQ 8.1 and DQ 8.2 Responses
DQ 8.1
Response to Leanna
Participation in medical research is an option for individuals with serious medical conditions, often with no better treatment available. To improve the scientific validity of research relevant to these populations and out of fairness, it is necessary to gain access to children and adolescents to conduct this research (Ittenbach et al., 2021). Children and teenagers are considered "vulnerable" populations deserving of special protections in law and ethics.
I agree with the point made on desperation pushing parents to permit their children to be included in clinical research. A parent will give in to medical endeavors for their children even if it bears a minimal chance of curing the child. Therefore, the desperation drives the parents to give consent for their kids to participate in the clinical research.
The desperation that parents have to treat their children can escalate beyond control. Medical research in the trial stage is still untested for side effects and may harm the participants. Trial drugs can cause bad reactions like breathing difficulties, sleeplessness, headache, or even death (Ittenbach et al., 2021). The trial drug can also treat the disease at hand but cause another severe disease in the long run.
Lawmakers must incorporate consent and permission to restrict parents from allowing their children to participate in clinical trial research. When discussing minors, we must consider a situation like minors with children. The law treats minors with children as adults and therefore affords the chance to give consent for participation in research. Emancipation frees a minor from the parent's rule and can therefore make independent decisions (Ittenbach et al., 2021). Currently, state legislation on clinical research on minors is a vacuum leaving researchers to take guesses. However, silence does not translate to impermissibility. Legislations under the Common Law should restrict parents on some clinical research scenarios and participation of minors.
Response to Jon
Therapeutic Misconception (T.M.T.M.) arises when a research subject fails to recognize the differences between the requirements of clinical research and those of standard care, they mistakenly assign therapeutic intent to research procedures. The original version of T.M.T.M. focused more on "confusion inside a protocol" than "confusion over protocol" (Jansen, 2020). The failure to perceive restrictions on personalized care and treatment inherent in some clinical research methodologies and procedures because they do not work on the principle of personal care is how T.M.T.M. manifests itself within a protocol.
However, many T.M.T.M. observers have asserted that patients can develop T.M.T.M. if they overestimate the therapeutic potential or advantages of taking part in trials with specific goals and layouts, such as early phase clinical research. Jon describes this overestimation of therapeutic advantages and potential as hope on the parents' side. Possibly due to misestimating of medical benefits in the definition and measurement of T.M.T.M. in many empirical studies on assent to Phase I trials, T.M.T.M. is reported or argued to be frequent in Phase I drug trials. Altruism also drives parents to include their children in medical research. The parents want other children with similar conditions as their children to find a cure in the future.
Courts should not override a parent's consent for the child to participate in a vaccine study if the researchers believe there are minimal risks. However, the court cannot rely only on the confidence the researchers provided. The researchers can assure parents of the vaccine's safety to proceed with their study and make sales. Therefore, courts must employ the services of an independent medical panel to analyze the vaccine study's possible effects (Jansen, 2020). If the independent medical panel finds the vaccine study harmful, the court can override the parent's original consent.
However, courts should not charge the parents with neglect when they consent for their child to be part of a vaccine study. As discussed above, parents consent because they have their child's interest at heart. Additionally, parents consent due to altruism and social responsibility to help others. Therefore, courts should never punish the good intentions of the parents. Most court cases are on overriding a parent's decision to withhold treatment for the child. The parents in such court cases have been occasionally charged with neglect by respective state laws.
Response to Sign
When discussing whether a minor can consent to research if they have consent for the treatment related to the research, we must first look at the researchers, when doctors and researchers work with pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology corporations to develop goods that improve individual and public health, patients and the general public profit. Meanwhile, worries emerge that extensive financial ties to the business may unreasonably sway professional decisions regarding medicine's core objectives and interests.
The neutrality of professional education, the caliber of patient care, and the public's confidence in medicine are all at risk due to these conflicts of interest. Treatment is not similar to research because the treatment uses already ...