Taking blood from children causes no more than minimal harm

Abstract

The ethical question of whether taking blood from normal children for research purposes is justified, is determined in part at least, by whether or not the children are harmed. To try to assess the risks, the effects of venepuncture on a group of healthy subjects were studied, by means of a parental questionnaire completed approximately eighteen months after the venepuncture had taken place. Ninety-two healthy children aged between 6 and 8 had a blood sample taken for non-therapeutic reasons as part of a research study. Questionnaire responses reveal few negative effects, and in some cases positive effects.

KIE: The ethics of using normal children as subjects in nontherapeutic research have been much debated, with some commentators arguing that children should never be exposed to any physical or psychological harm for this purpose. Opinions are divided as to whether even such a common, low-risk procedure as venepuncture is permitted. Smith conducted a survey in which parents of 92 healthy children who had donated blood samples were questioned about the effects of the experience on the young donors. The majority of parents completing the survey reported that their children were not upset before or after the blood sample was taken, and several parents felt that the effects of the experience were slightly or definitely positive. Smith concludes that if extremely anxious or unwilling youngsters are excluded, there is minimal risk in using children as subjects in nontherapeutic venepuncture research.