|
"This appears to be a practice that violated the rights of children and amounted to state approved child abuse and manslaughter."
This appears to be an INCIDENT that violated...there, i feel better.
"If children were not appointed independent advocates to look after their individual interests, as mandated by federal law and the law in some states, is this INCIDENT that different from the research that Nazi Germany performed on children in the 1940's?"
It's not government mandated practice, as it was in Nazi Germany. At worst its individuals breaking the law, who are currently being investigated. At best it's individuals miscalculating risk-benefit ratio; therefore determining advocates weren't needed. (though the risk-benefit ratio and need for assent should have been determined by an independent IRB, not the participating sites).
The children in the 5-10 age range were informed of the risks and given their assent. No need to make it sound like the government took their cavalry, lassoed homeless children, and forced a drug down their throat. Laws are in place to protect research participants, occasionally mistakes are made, very occasionally laws are intentionally broken.
Astrahl, this is my job as well. I have a list of questions about the way this trial was run that the article did not address. Host, whether or not the US government research operates on a level comparable to Nazi Germany is not one of them. If your overzealousness to make this comparison weren't so routine, it'd be sickening.
|