Actually, bad reporting is to be found in the UK as well as in America. As I understand it, the sources for this article/documentary are people who believe that AIDS is not caused by the a virus, and that all the medications used to combat it are ineffective, poisonous, and Evil. The vast majority of scientists and the medical profession seem to disagree, and to think that the medications (despite bad side-effects) are usually more beneficial than harmful, in the long run.
Anyway, the problem isn't the medications, or the fact that they are being tested, or even that they are being tested on children. Or even necessarily that they are being used on involuntary subjects. The problem is that they are being tested on involuntary subjects. And you don't do that. You get permission first.
I'm not sure the Beeb thinks anything, but the the reporter/producer handling this show seems to have cited mostly (or entirely?) people who hold that the HIV retrovirus is not the cause of AIDS. That makes the slant of the article particulary spectacular.
Whether children are capable of being voluntary subjects for medical trials is a big question (& one I'm not capable of answering, though I do think "informed consent" is murky when applied to, say, a three-year-old). Millions of children, world-wide, have AIDS. Many medications, despite their bad side-effects, have been shown to be beneficial to adults with AIDS. The effects of most of these medications on children appaently is not well known, and can be discovered only by clinical trials. We do know, I think, that children with AIDS die gradually, painfully, and young if they receive no (or only palliative) treatment.
Clinical trials, at least in the US, are quite carefully regulated, and even more rigidly when they involve children. Whether a parent, or -- probably more to the point here -- a non-parental Legal Guardian, ought to be authorized to permit experimental treatments of children who have a lethal disease is certainly Interesting, but I'm not sure a universally-satisfying answer is possible. I think it's fairly safe to bet, however, that all the paperwork in this instance is in perfect order with permission being granted by either a parent or a legal guardian.
I am assuming, of course, that all of the medications involved have been tried first on animals, then on adult humans, before their effects on children were investigated.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zaluzianskya and ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
skylark_photos
no subject
Date: 2004-12-03 02:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-05 07:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-07 04:37 am (UTC)Anyway, the problem isn't the medications, or the fact that they are being tested, or even that they are being tested on children. Or even necessarily that they are being used on involuntary subjects. The problem is that they are being tested on involuntary subjects. And you don't do that. You get permission first.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-07 10:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-11 04:39 am (UTC)Whether children are capable of being voluntary subjects for medical trials is a big question (& one I'm not capable of answering, though I do think "informed consent" is murky when applied to, say, a three-year-old). Millions of children, world-wide, have AIDS. Many medications, despite their bad side-effects, have been shown to be beneficial to adults with AIDS. The effects of most of these medications on children appaently is not well known, and can be discovered only by clinical trials. We do know, I think, that children with AIDS die gradually, painfully, and young if they receive no (or only palliative) treatment.
Clinical trials, at least in the US, are quite carefully regulated, and even more rigidly when they involve children. Whether a parent, or -- probably more to the point here -- a non-parental Legal Guardian, ought to be authorized to permit experimental treatments of children who have a lethal disease is certainly Interesting, but I'm not sure a universally-satisfying answer is possible. I think it's fairly safe to bet, however, that all the paperwork in this instance is in perfect order with permission being granted by either a parent or a legal guardian.
I am assuming, of course, that all of the medications involved have been tried first on animals, then on adult humans, before their effects on children were investigated.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-15 06:06 am (UTC)