noting that in research studies, the consent of the child is necessarily furnished through the consent of the parent
How later courts described this case
- noting that in research studies, the consent of the child is necessarily furnished through the consent of the parent
- non-disclosure to patients about exposure to radiation
- comparing and contrasting therapeutic and nontherapeutic research studies
- medical researchers had duty to disclose that children participating in research study were subject to lead-based paint
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RAKER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the order denying the motions for reconsideration. I adhere to the views previously expressed in my concurring opinion filed herein on August 16, 2001.
The majority’s discussion of the ability of a parent or guardian to consent to the participation of a minor child in a nontherapeutic research study and the discussion regarding the ethics of the research conducted in these cases involve serious public policy considerations. The statements are a declaration of public policy that, in the posture of this case, are best left to the General Assembly. See Gaver v. Harrant, 316 Md. 17, 28-29 , 557 A.2d 210, 217 (1989); Harrison v. Mont. Co. Bd of Educ., 295 Md. 442, 460 , 456 A.2d 894, 903 (1983). Inasmuch as these issues were never raised by the pleadings or the parties below, this Court had no basis to address these very complex issues; if a change is to be made in the State’s policy of regulating research studies, unless clearly presented to the court, it should be made by legislative *121 enactment. See Md. Nat'l Bk. v. United Jewish App., 286 Md. 274 , 407 A.2d 1130 (1979). This matter merits the close scrutiny of the General Assembly. See Cotharn and Maldonado v. Board, 260 Md. 556 , 273 A.2d 115 (1971).