Children, Gillick competency and consent for involvement in research

David Hunter, Barbara K. Pierscionek

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    36 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    This paper looks at the issue of consent from children and whether the test of Gillick competency, applied in medical and healthcare practice, ought to extend to participation in research. It is argued that the relatively broad usage of the test of Gillick competency in the medical context should not be considered applicable for use in research. The question of who would and could determine Gillick competency in research raises further concerns relating to the training of the researcher to make such a decision as well as to the obvious issue of the researcher's personal interest in the project and possibility of benefiting from the outcome. These could affect the judgment of Gillick competency if the researcher is charged with making this decision. The above notwithstanding, there are two exceptional research situations in which Gillick competency might be legitimately applied: ( 1) when the research is likely to generate significant advantages for the participants while exposing them to relatively minor risks, and ( 2) when it is likely to generate great societal benefit, pose minimal risks for the participants and yet raise parental objection. In both cases, to ensure that autonomy is genuinely respected and to protect against personal interest, Gillick competency should be assessed by an individual who has no interest or involvement in the research.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)659-662
    JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
    Volume33
    Issue number11
    Publication statusPublished - Nov 2007

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Children, Gillick competency and consent for involvement in research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Hunter, D., & Pierscionek, B. K. (2007). Children, Gillick competency and consent for involvement in research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(11), 659-662.