"An element of intimidation, if not coercion, was introduced by the use of juvenile justice system officers to identify subjects to the medical researchers. Middle-class white Americans may appreciate police and probation officers as guardians who "serve and protect", but inner city Blacks often have hostile relationships with police. These important abuses raise the question of whether it is morally right to use healthy children and a study that is non therapeutic, dangerous, and stigmatizing.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) would seem to prohibit this. It's Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 45, part 46, governs the protection of human experimental subjects and specifically prohibits experiments on healthy children that convey more than "minimal risk". "I would contend that fasting, hospitalization, low monoamine diet, fenfluramine challenge, sereal blood sampling, and exhaustive psychological and educational testing, is clearly more than minimal risk," observed Ernest D. Prentice, Ph.D., associate dean for research at the University of Nebraska. "That protocol was not approvable under the regulations."
When the Hearing Committee on Governmental Reform and Oversight convened to examine the FDA role in the fenfluramine research, Dr. Walsh, chair of the NYSPI IRB, defended the study by invoking the recent deadly shootings at schools across our country. John Oldham, NYSPI executive director, shared these concerns. "With the disasters in Littleton and elsewhere, it has become abundantly clear that studies of aggressive behavior in children are imperative."
However, the shootings in question had been carried out by white boys, who were clearly troubled and violent, but who were specifically excluded from these studies in favor of children of color. Why were such studies not conducted in suburban or rural, mostly white school systems?
Chapter 11- Medical Apartheid, Harriet A. Washington
gamechangershow
vaporwave
kianamaiart
dailybridgerton
