This article argues that teenagers become fully capable of consenting to participation in most IRB-approved research involving human subjects at age 14, four years earlier than they are allowed to consent under virtually all states' laws, and, consequently, four years younger than they are able to consent under currently applicable federal regulations. In determining the age at which person is old enough to have decision-making authority, legal institutions look at the intellectual and emotional maturity of someone of the age of the decision-maker, the risks and benefits of allowing the decision to be made by someone of that age, and the risks and benefits of denying a person of that age the authority to make the decision. Given the high level of safety of participating in IRB approved research, the value of doing so for both the society and the teenage subject, and the psychological and neuropsycho-logical research on the specific nature of emotional and intellectual development during the teen years, the balance comes out in favor of allowing younger teens, by the age of 14, authority to consent to participate as subjects in IRB approved research. The current process requiring both teen assent and parental permission should give way to a process that requires only a teen's consent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
45 CFR 46.101-109, Additional Protections for Children Involved as Subjects of Research (2015). For a comprehensive and helpful analysis of the protection of children as research subjects, see D.Coleman, “The Legal Ethics of Pediatric Research,”Duke Law Journal57, no. 3 (2007): 517-624.
2.
This has been true at least since Schloendorff v. New York Hospital, 105 NE2d 92, at 93 (N.Y. App. 1914), and the requirement is affirmed by statute or common law in virtually every state. See B.Furrowet al., Health Law Hornbook, 3d ed. (St. Paul, Minn.: West Academic, 2015): at 121.
3.
L.Weithorn and S.Campbell, “The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions,”Child Development53, no. 6 (1982): 1589-1598.
4.
See L.Kohlberg, Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), and J.Piaget, “The Role of Action in the Development of Thinking,” in Knowledge and Development (Boston: Springer, 1977): at 17-42.
5.
See the discussion below in “What the Supreme Court's Rulings in Roper and Its Progeny Teach about Adolescent Healthcare Decision Making.”
6.
U.S. Const. Amend. viii.
7.
See K. M.Mutcherson, “Minor Discrepancies: Forging a Common Understanding of Adolescent Competence in Healthcare Decision-Making and Criminal Responsibility,”Nevada Law Journal6, no. 3 (2006): 927-965 (suggesting, “it is logical to conclude that the decision-making process in formal healthcare settings leads to better decisions that the law should support than is the case in the informal settings in which young people decide to participate in criminal activities”).
See generally D.Coleman and P.Rosoff, “The Legal Authority of Mature Minors to Consent to General Medical Treatment,”Pediatrics131, no. 4 (2012): 786-793.
11.
See B.Furrowet al., Health Law Hornbook (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 2015): Chapter 14, “Reproduction and Birth,” at 806-823.
29 U.S. C. § 201 et seq., Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
14.
Governors Highway Safety Association, “Highway Safety Laws by State,”State Laws and Funding, available at <http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/> (last visited July 17, 2017).
15.
Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (rev. 2006). See generally, J.Verheijde, M.Rady, and J.McGregor, “The United States Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (2006): New Challenges to Balancing Patient Rights and Physician Responsibilities,”Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine2(2007): 19-27.
16.
For example, California and Maryland. The Maryland statute provides: “(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a minor who is at least 17 years old, without the consent of a parent or legal guardian, may give blood to a program that: (1) Is voluntary; (2) Does not pay money for the blood; and (3) Is approved by: (i) The American Association of Blood Banks; or (ii) The American Red Cross. (b) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a minor who is at least 16 years old, and has obtained the consent of a parent or legal guardian, may give blood to the programs listed in subsection (a) of this section. (2) Consent may be obtained via telephone or electronic means. Maryland Health-Gen Code § 20-101 (2013).”
17.
N.M.Stat. Ann. 24-7-6.1 (2015).
18.
There has been a policy debate in Colorado, for example, about whether medical marijuana patients between the ages of 18 and 21 should be the subject of special screening. See J.Fender, “Politics: Colorado Lawmakers Back Age Limits for Medical Pot Users,”Denver Post, March29, 2010.
19.
U.S. Const., Art. 1 Sec. 2.
20.
42 U.S. Code § 300gg—14 (2015); Extension of dependent coverage.
See Furow, supra note 11, “Chapter 17: Regulation of Research Upon Human Subjects,” at 986-987.
27.
Id.
28.
45 CFR sec. 46.102 (a)(2015).
29.
“Teaching the Responsible Conduct of Research in Humans,”Dr.StanleyG.KorenmanM.D. and, 45 CFR sec. 50, 56.
30.
45 CFR sec. 46.102(b), (c)(2015).
31.
“Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (“Common Rule”), 45 CFR part 46C (2015).
32.
45 CFR 46.405 (2015).
33.
45 CFR 46.406 (2015).
34.
45 CFR 46.407 (2015).
35.
45 CFR 46.111(a) (2015).
36.
J.Piaget, “The Role of Action in the Development of Thinking,” in W.Overton and J. McCarthyGallagher, Knowledge and development (Boston: Springer, 1977): at 17-42.
37.
Id.
38.
Id.
39.
Id.
40.
Id.
41.
Id.
42.
See Kohlberg, supra note 4.
43.
Id.
44.
Id.
45.
Id.
46.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 574 (2005), Amicus brief, American Psychological Association.
47.
S.-J.Blakemore and T. W.Robbins, “Decision-Making in the Adolescent Brain,”Nature Neuroscience15, no. 9 (2012): 1184-1191; Weithorn and Campbell, supra note 3.
48.
Id.
49.
Id.
50.
, Facts for Family -- Teen Brain: Behavior, Problem Solving, and Decision Making No. 95 (2011).
51.
See Weithorn and Campbell, supra note 3.
52.
Id.
53.
45 CFR 46.111, 46.116 (2015).
54.
See D.Wendler and S.Shah, “Should Children Decide Whether They Are Enrolled in Nonbeneficial Research?”American Journal of Bioethics3, no. 4 (2003): 1-7.
55.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 574 (2005).
56.
108 S.Ct. 2687 (1988)
57.
122 S.Ct. 2242 (2002).
58.
See Roper v. Simmons, supra note 55, at 1198.
59.
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
60.
Amicus brief, American Psychological Association, filed in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 574 (2005).
61.
560 U.S. 48 (2010).
62.
Id.
63.
567 U.S. ____, 132 S. Ct. 2455(2012).
64.
Id., at 2460.
65.
Roper v. Simmons, supra note 55, at 1198.
66.
Id.
67.
Id. And see generally Mutcherson, supra note 7.
68.
Thoughtful writers have suggested that society would benefit from treating those under 24 the way we now treat teenage offenders. See D. P.Farrington, R.Loeber, and J. C.Howell, “Young Adult Offenders: The Need for More Effective Legislative Options and Justice Processing,”Criminology and Public Policy11 (2012): 729-750.
69.
122 S.Ct. 2242.
70.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 574 (2005), Amicus brief, American Psychological Association.
