Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T01:53:23.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minimal Risk in Research Involving Pregnant Women and Fetuses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Carson Strong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How should the definition of “minimal risk” in the federal research regulations be interpreted in regard to pregnant women and fetuses? Surprisingly, there has been little discussion of this question. There is, after all, a substantial amount of published work addressing the question of how “minimal risk” should be interpreted. Similarly, there is a large body of literature on the ethics of research involving pregnant women and fetuses, particularly maternal-fetal surgery. However, in neither of these bodies of work can one find an analysis of minimal risk in regard to fetuses or pregnant women.

The concept of minimal risk is defined in the regulations as follows:

Minimal risk means that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.

Type
Independent
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , Fall 2011 , pp. 529 - 538
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

45 C.F.R. § 46.102(i) (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.110(b)(1) (2005).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.116(d) (2005).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.117(c)(2) (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.204(b) (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.204(d) (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections, “Categories of Research That May Be Reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) through an Expedited Review Procedure,” November 9, 1998, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/expedited98.html> (last visited May 18, 2011).+(last+visited+May+18,+2011).>Google Scholar
Coutelle, C. Rodeck, C., “On the Scientific and Ethical Issues of Fetal Somatic Gene Therapy,” Gene Therapy 9, no. 11 (2002): 670–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, S. N. Kramer, M. G. Hernandez-Alcoceba, R. et al., “In Utero Gene Therapy: Current Challenges and Perspectives,” Molecular Therapy 11, no. 5 (2005): 661–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Research Involving Children: Report and Recommendations, DHEW Publication No. (OS) 77–0004 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977), at xx (emphasis added).Google Scholar
Freedman, B. Fuks, A. Weijer, C., “In Loco Parentis: Minimal Risk as an Ethical Threshold for Research upon Children,” Hastings Center Report 23, no. 2 (1993): 13–19. For a commentary that agrees with the position and argument of Freedman et al., See Weijer, C., “The Ethical Analysis of Risk,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28, no. 4 (2000): 344–361; see also Miller, P. B. Weijer, C., “Moral Solutions in Assessing Research Risk,” IRB 22, no. 5 (2000): 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants, August 2001, at 83, available at <http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/human/overvol1.pdf> (last visited May 25, 2011). For an earlier statement of an argument based on justice, See Kopelman, L., “Estimating Risk in Human Research,” Clinical Research 29, no. 1 (1981): 1–8.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, National Human Research Protections Advisory Committee, Children's Workgroup Report, April 2001, at 5, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nhrpac/mtg04–01/child-workgroup4-5-01.pdf> (last visited May 25, 2011). (last visited May 25, 2011).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Department+of+Health+and+Human+Services,+National+Human+Research+Protections+Advisory+Committee,+Children's+Workgroup+Report,+April+2001,+at+5,+available+at++(last+visited+May+25,+2011).>Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine, Committee on Clinical Research Involving Children, Ethical Conduct of Clinical Research Involving Children (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004): At 121–122.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, “SACHRP Chair Letter to HHS Secretary Regarding Recommendations,” July 28, 2005, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/sachrpltrtohhssec.html> (, 2011). (, 2011).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Department+of+Health+and+Human+Services,+Secretary's+Advisory+Committee+on+Human+Research+Protections,+“SACHRP+Chair+Letter+to+HHS+Secretary+Regarding+Recommendations,”+July+28,+2005,+available+at++(,+2011).>Google Scholar
Kopelman, L. M., “Minimal Risk as an International Ethical Standard in Research,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29, no. 3 (2004): 351–378, at 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 366.Google Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, “SACHRP Chair Letter to HHS Secretary Regarding Recommendations,” July 28, 2005, Appendix B, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/sachrpltrtohhssecapdb.html> (last visited March 23, 2011). (last visited March 23, 2011).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Department+of+Health+and+Human+Services,+Secretary's+Advisory+Committee+on+Human+Research+Protections,+“SACHRP+Chair+Letter+to+HHS+Secretary+Regarding+Recommendations,”+July+28,+2005,+Appendix+B,+available+at++(last+visited+March+23,+2011).>Google Scholar
See Kopelman, , supra note 12, at2.Google Scholar
Id., at 4.Google Scholar
See Freedman, Fuks, Weijer, , supra note 11; Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 13.Google Scholar
See Kopelman, , supra note 12, at 4.Google Scholar
See Kopelman, , supra note 16, at 364.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 14, at 123.Google Scholar
See National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 12, at 83.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 13, at 1.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 14, at 122; Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 15. For an example of an age-indexed approach, See Wendler, D., “Minimal Risk in Pediatric Research as a Function of Age,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 163, no. 2 (2009): 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Id. (Department of Health and Human Services).Google Scholar
See Freedman, Fuks, Weijer, , supra note 11.Google Scholar
Kopelman, L. M., “Children as Research Subjects: A Dilemma,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25, no. 6 (2000): 745–764, at 757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The studies include: Janofsky, J. Starfield, B., “Assessment of Risk in Research on Children,” Journal of Pediatrics 98, no. 5 (1981): 842–846; Shah, S. Whittle, A. Wilfond, B. Gensler, G. Wendler, D., “How Do Institutional Review Boards Apply the Federal Risk and Benefit Standards for Pediatric Research?” JAMA 291, no. 4 (2004): 476–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, supra note 10, at xx–xxi.Google Scholar
See Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 18.Google Scholar
See Institute of Medicine, supra note 14, at 126.Google Scholar
See Department of Health and Human Services, supra note 18.Google Scholar
See National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 12, at 80–85.Google Scholar
See Kopelman, , supra note 16, at 375.Google Scholar
Id., at 365.Google Scholar
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, Geneva, 2002, at 49, available at <http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf> (last visited May 25, 2011).+(last+visited+May+25,+2011).>Google Scholar
See Kopelman, , supra note 12, at 4.Google Scholar
See Kopelman, , supra note 16, at 361.Google Scholar
Resnik, D. B., “Eliminating the Daily Life Risks Standard from the Definition of Minimal Risk,” Journal of Medical Ethics 31, no. 1 (2005): 35–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Freedman, Fuks, Weijer, , supra note 11, at 16.Google Scholar
Wendler, D. Belsky, L. Thompson, K. M. Emanuel, E. J., “Quantifying the Federal Minimal Risk Standard,” JAMA 294, no. 7 (2005): 826–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kopelman, , supra note 16, at 361.Google Scholar
Fisher, C. B. Kornetsky, S. Z. Prentice, E. D., “Determining Risk in Pediatric Research with No Prospect of Direct Benefit: Time for a National Consensus on the Interpretation of Federal Regulations,” American Journal of Bioethics 7, no. 3 (2007): 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 7.Google Scholar
Wendler, D., “Protecting Subjects Who Cannot Give Consent,” Hastings Center Report 35, no. 5 (2005): 37–43, at 38; see also Wendler, et al., supra note 45, at 831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. (Wendler, et al) supra note 45.Google Scholar
Id., at 830–831.Google Scholar
See Wendler, (2005), supra note 49, at 40.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Routine Tests in Pregnancy, available at <http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/bp133.cfm?printerFriendly=yes> (last visited May 18, 2011).+(last+visited+May+18,+2011).>Google Scholar
American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Prudent Use and Clinical Safety, available at <http://www.aium.org/publications/statements.aspx> (last visited January 1, 2011); American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Ethics, “Nonmedical Use of Obstetric Ultrasonography,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 104, no. 2 (2004): 423–424.CrossRef+(last+visited+January+1,+2011);+American+College+of+Obstetricians+and+Gynecologists,+Committee+on+Ethics,+“Nonmedical+Use+of+Obstetric+Ultrasonography,”+Obstetrics+and+Gynecology+104,+no.+2+(2004):+423–424.>Google Scholar
Simpson, J. L. Elias, S., Genetics in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2003) at 101–102.Google Scholar
Id., at 101–113.Google Scholar
Michels, T. C. Tiu, A. Y., “Second Trimester Pregnancy Loss,” American Family Physician 76, no. 9 (2007): 1341–1346.Google Scholar
Wyatt, P. R. Owolabi, T. Meier, C. Huang, T, “Age-Specific Risk of Fetal Loss Observed in a Second Trimester Serum Screening Population,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 192, no. 1 (2005): 240–246, at 241. This study might underestimate the post-first-trimester mortality rate because it involved pregnancies at 15 weeks gestational age onward.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugoff, L. Cuckle, H. S. Hobbins, J. C. et al., “Prediction of Patient-Specific Risk for Fetal Loss Using Maternal Characteristics and First- and Second-Trimester Maternal Serum Down Syndrome Markers,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199, no. 3 (2008): 290e1–290e6, at 290e3–290e4. This study reports early and late fetal loss rates that, when combined, yield the percentage stated in the text.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, F. G. Hauth, J. C. Leveno, K. J. et al., Williams Obstetrics, 22nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005): Chap. 27, “Abnormalities of the Placenta, Umbilical Cord, and Membranes,” at 619–630. “Nuchal cord” refers to the umbilical cord being wrapped around the fetal neck. This can cause cord compression and associated decrease in oxygenation leading to fetal brain injury or death.Google Scholar
Clapp, J. F. Stepanchak, W. Hashimoto, K. Ehrenberg, H. Lopez, B., “The Natural History of Antenatal Nuchal Cords,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 189, no. 2 (2003): 488–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, D. J. Filly, R. A., “Sonographic Diagnosis of the Amniotic Band Syndrome,” American Journal of Roentgenology 156, no. 3 (1991): 555–558, at 555. Amniotic band syndrome is believed to be caused when disruption of the amniotic membrane leads to fetal parts entering the space between the amniotic and chorionic membranes and becoming entangled with fibrous septa, disrupting normal development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterman, M. J. K. Martin, J. A. Menacker, F., “Expanded Health Data from the New Birth Certificate, 2006,” National Vital Statistics Reports 58, no. 5 (2009): 1–24, at 4.Google Scholar
Id., at 19, 20. An estimate of those with pathologies throughout gestation would be those born with congenital anomalies. The total number of reported births, excluding infants with congenital anomalies, was 2,066,433. The number of NICU admissions, excluding infants with congenital anomalies, is estimated to be 116,987.Google Scholar