Assent in Paediatric Research and Its Consequences

  • Jan Piasecki
  • Marcin Waligora
  • Vilius Dranseika
Part of the Research Ethics Forum book series (REFF, volume 4)


This article proposes a consequentialist approach to the problem of children’s assent in research. To date, one of the main controversies concerning assent has been about the necessary conditions for making a morally significant decision. Some argue that to make a morally significant decision a child has to understand the abstract concept of altruism. Therefore it is crucial to determine at what stage of development this ability arises. Others argue that the crucial condition is to determine when children gain the capacities for making autonomous decisions regarding participation in research. Since these philosophical and psychological controversies are quite persistent, a calculation of the benefits and harms might be essential for implementing a uniform policy. We argue that the benefits of a properly applied policy requiring assent from all capable children is more beneficial than a policy setting a high age threshold for assent. We also suggest that the consequentialist argument depends on empirical premises that might be either supported or proven false by empirical research.



We would like to thank Ben Koschalka for linguistic editing. This project was funded by the National Science Centre, Poland, DEC-2011/03/D/HS1/01695.


  1. Alderson, P. 1992. In the genes or in the stars? Children’s competence to consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 18(3): 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alderson, P. 2007. Competent children? Minors’ consent to health care treatment and research. Social Science & Medicine 65(11): 2272–2283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alderson, P., J. Hawthorne, and M. Killen. 2005. The participation rights of premature babies. International Journal of Children’s Rights 13: 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baines, P. 2011. Assent for children’s participation in research is incoherent and wrong. Archives of Disease in Childhood 96(10): 960–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baylis, F., and J. Downie. 2003. The limits of altruism and arbitrary age limits. American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diekema, D.S. 2003. Taking children seriously: What’s so important about assent? American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 25–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fisher, H. 2013. Assent to participate in healthcare research. Current Allergy & Clinical Immunology 26(3): 145–150.Google Scholar
  8. Giesbertz, N.A., A.L. Bredenoord, and J.J. van Delden. 2014. Clarifying assent in pediatric research. European Journal of Human Genetics 22(2): 266–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Joffe, S. 2003. Rethink “affirmative agreement”, but abandon “assent”. American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kimberly, M.B., K.S. Hoehn, C. Feudtner, R.M. Nelson, and M. Schreiner. 2006. Variation in standards of research compensation and child assent practices: A comparison of 69 institutional review board-approved informed permission and assent forms for 3 multicenter pediatric clinical trials. Pediatrics 117(5): 1706–1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kon, A.A. 2006. Assent in pediatric research. Pediatrics 117(5): 1806–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McGee, E.M. 2003. Altruism, children, and nonbeneficial research. American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 21–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller, V.A., and R.M. Nelson. 2006. A developmental approach to child assent for nontherapeutic research. Journal of Pediatrics 149(Suppl 1): S25–S30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nelson, R.M. 2007. Minimal risk, yet again. Journal of Pediatrics 150(6): 570–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nelson, R.M., and W.W. Reynolds. 2003. We should reject passive resignation in favor of requiring the assent of younger children for participation in nonbeneficial research. American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Piasecki, J., M. Waligora, and V. Dranseika. 2015. Non-beneficial pediatric research: Individual and social interests. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 18(1): 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rotnem, D., D.J. Cohen, R. Hintz, and M. Genel. 1979. Psychological sequelae of relative “Treatment Failure” for children receiving human growth hormone replacement. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 18(3): 505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sibley, A., M. Sheehan, and A.J. Pollard. 2012. Assent is not consent. Journal of Medical Ethics 38(1): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tait, A.R., T. Voepel-Lewis, and S. Malviya. 2003a. Do they understand? (part I): Parental consent for children participating in clinical anesthesia and surgery research. Anesthesiology 98(3): 603–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tait, A.R., T. Voepel-Lewis, and S. Malviya. 2003b. Do they understand? (part II): Assent of children participating in clinical anesthesia and surgery research. Anesthesiology 98(3): 609–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tauer, C.A. 1994. The NIH, trials of growth hormone for short stature. IRB 16(3): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Waligora, M., V. Dranseika, and J. Piasecki. 2014. Child’s assent in research: Age threshold or personalisation? BMC Medical Ethics 15: 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Warren, M.A. 2005. Moral status. Obligations to persons and other living things (issues in biomedical ethics). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wendler, D. 2006. Assent in paediatric research: Theoretical and practical considerations. Journal of Medical Ethics 32(4): 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wendler, D. 2008. The assent requirement in pediatric research. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics, ed. E.J. Emanuel, A. Robert, C. Grady, R.K. Lie, F.G. Miller, and D. Wendler, 661–669. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wendler, D., and S. Shah. 2003. Should children decide whether they are enrolled in nonbeneficial research? American Journal of Bioethics 3(4): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Piasecki
    • 1
  • Marcin Waligora
    • 1
  • Vilius Dranseika
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.REMEDY, Research Ethics in Medicine Study Group, Department of Philosophy and BioethicsJagiellonian University, Medical CollegeKrakowPoland
  2. 2.Department of Logic and History of PhilosophyVilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations