Bioethical Dilemmas: Children as Research Subjects and Organ Donors

Name
Course
Professor
Date
TQ 8.1 Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Inst & Hart v. Brown
Hart's case differed from Grime's case. Even though parental consent was essential in both cases, the Hart case considered the donor's well-being and willingness to donate a kidney. Second, in the Hart case, the nurse conducting the transplant declined to perform the transplant, not unless the court declared full consent from the involved parents. In addition, even though there were risks involved, the court examined them and informed the guardians and the twin sisters. Margaret, the donor, agreed to donate the Kidney to Kathleen anyway.
Third, even though the operation was nontherapeutic to one child, it was therapeutic to another. Kathleen, the donee, would be affected by the immunosuppressive drugs, but the court sought consent from the donor, clergypersons, and guardians. All thought it was in the twins' best interest to go ahead with the operation.
However, Grime's case addressed the parents' consent authority to the children being research subjects without being a direct benefit to them. The parents were enticed to the study, and the researchers did not alert the parents of the risks involved. Thus, minor involvement in the Grimes case was not identified, while in the Hart case, the nurse to conduct the procedure sought consent and informed the participants of the risks and benefits involved.
In both cases, minors were the subject of the study. The difference is, in the Hart case the twins, which were 7 years old were the subject of the non-therapeutic and therapeutic with their consent and that of their guardian. One of the kids was a beneficiary while the other was the donor. In Grimes's case, the minors were involved in the research but the parents were beneficiaries. It became a major case when one of the kid's blood had risks involved. The families targeted in the research were low-income earners and thus easily gave in to the study. Thus, in both cases, the minors were the subject of research even though in Hart's case, one was a therapeutic cause.
Grimes's case allowed parents to consent for their siblings while in Hart's case, consent from the guardians and caregivers was not enough. Thus, there was further examination of the risks and benefits and donor consent was considered.
TQ 8.2 Therapeutic Misconception.
The therapeutic misconception is when the patient believes a research project will directly benefit them via ordinary trials than imperative clinical research.
Health care professionals contribute to the therapeutic misconceptions by failing to give the entire concept of the trials from phase 1 to the expected results, risks involved, and sometimes the children involved might not be healed. Also, the misinformation by the healthcare providers that the children will benefit in the first phase of the trial, which in most cases does not happen, provide a therapeutic misconception. (Oberman & Frader)
TQ 8.3 Barriers to LGBTQ Research
Federal regulations inhibit research among minors and adolescents, limiting clinicians and researchers to studying the LGBTQ community comprehensively. Also, parents do not consent to the children in fear of the stigma associated with revealing coming out as a membe...