new EPA regulation on human experimentation

[hmm]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm">www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>ALERT: EPA TO ALLOW PESTICIDE TESTING ON ORPHANS & MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN<br><br>Monday, November 21, 2005<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Public Comment Period for this rule Closes<br>December 12, 2005</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, misleadingly titled "Protections for Subjects in Human Research," puts industry profits ahead of children's welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:<br><br> 1. Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.<br> 2. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br> 3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>a point by point examination of the wording of the proposed regulation can be found in the article<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm">www.organicconsumers.org/epa6.cfm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>and a link to the actual proposal incase you have doubts<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-GENERAL/2005/September/Day-12/g18010.htm">www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-...g18010.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Protections for Subjects in Human Research <br><br>[Federal Register: September 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 175)]<br>[Proposed Rules]<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>i'm at a loss for words here to express how this makes me feel.. <p></p><i></i>

[banned]

Oh wait, this is HUMAN experimentation.<br><br>Yes, this beggars the imagination. I thought this proposal had already been defeated. <p></p><i></i>

[hmm]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I thought this proposal had already been defeated.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>this is still up on the EPA website<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Public Comment Period for this rule Closes<br>December 12, 2005<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>i cant get over that it would make it legal to experiment on neglected and abused children without the consent of the child or its guardian or parent.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>70 FR 53865 26.408(a) "The IRB (Independent Review Board) shall determine that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children, when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing assent...If the IRB determines that the capability of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot reasonably be consulted, the assent of the children is not a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may still waive the assent requirement..."<br><br>(OCA NOTE: Under this clause, a mentally handicapped child or infant orphan could be tested on without assent. This violates the Nuremberg Code, an international treaty that mandates assent of test subjects is "absolutely essential," and that the test subject must have "legal capacity to give consent" and must be "so situated as to exercise free power of choice." This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)<br><br>70 FR 53865 26.408(c) "If the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent requirements..."<br><br>(OCA NOTE: Under the general rule, the EPA is saying it's okay to test chemicals on children if their parents or institutional guardians consent to it. This clause says that neglected or abused children have unfit guardians, so no consent would be required to test on those children. This loophole in the rule must be completely removed.)<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>i cant find anything about this proposal being defeated so if anyone else does please share.. <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>*cough*Nazis*cough* <p></p><i></i>

[mother]

This is what we have discovered over and over, in one way or another in our experiences with adoption and foster care. And if you've not experienced it first-hand, dealing with some (not all, thank God) of the "workers" and supervisors in the social services community will settle all doubts that we are living in the Fourth Reich. The evil staggers the mind. We have found that resisting these people can cause very unpleasant consequences. <p></p><i></i>

[hmm]

Proposal on human experimentation raises ethical concerns, agency employees say<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/epa6.cfm">www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/epa6.cfm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>By Andrew Schneider<br>Baltimore Sun<br>December 7, 2005<br><br>The union representing scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency added its voice Wednesday to critics who are protesting the agency's proposed rule for human experimentation in testing pesticides. <br>~snip~<br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The period during which the public can comment on the planned rule ends next week.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> The deadline for issuing the final rule is the end of January 2006.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Monday 12th of december is the last day for public comment... <p></p><i></i>

[firstimer]

Geeze,<br><br>What the hell were they going to do with all of those autistic children abandoned by their pathetically unprepaired parents anyway?<br><br>And those wonderful autistic adults capable of self determination, but lacking the skepticism or the supervision to keep the Nazi doctors testing drugs off of their backs?<br><br>There are lots of repossessed crack babies to throw in the mix, and the AIDS ones as well.<br><br>While we are at it subsizise healthcare of poor parents in exchange for "medical" testing on their children.<br><br>These will be just the candidates that Big Pharm needs to test the world they want to create where vaccines are necessary entrance fee to the universe for every born child. A childs odds of survival won't just be improved, the child will depend on these vaccines for survival in the world of HN251.00004, Ebola Merck vers. 2.365, and metahanta picolo,doppio, and romeo. Don't forget transgenetic soybean fever and synthetic corn-cancer.<br><br>See if that child can say no to Drugs Now!<br><br><br><br>Look out... the FDA, CDC, and NIH could get FEMA'd as soon as the avian flu exposes how unprepared they are for the Katrina of all pandemics.<br><br>Isn't it fitting that the Hurricane Katrina, and the Avian Flu Pandemic are played up as natural disasters that will transform the agencies originally designed to protect us into agencies designed to enslave us? <br><br>How are they going to address the cause if they think it was Intelligent Design Flaw number 1?<br><br>Thank you Jeff for giving us a place to figure this out.<br><br>firstimer <p></p><i></i>

[ir]

i posted this website a while ago for the Harvard psychiatrist lecture. they are monitoring these issues and have action alerts as well. they have been ON the pesticide issue for two years now. <br><br>I find it very symbolic that the children are less important than cockroaches. infanticide in the guise of science ? nazis used to call their enemies "pests", and described their extermination like in using pesticides. <br><br>how terrible. what is going on in the USA ? <br><br>we have the same atmosphere here, children are pests in the new israel. or numbers; or potential soldiers; or consumers; total dehumanization. Reminds me of Leonard Cohn's lines "don't like children anyway" can't remember the lines. but it describes that state of mind. <p></p><i></i>

[jenz]

the question of consenting for someone else , especially a child, needs examining. children need advocacy and rights protection legislation. some parents don't love their kids, some parents can be misled. this proposal is horrific. is there a way of knowing which companies have tested or are testing on children?<br> <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

My first reaction to this was to be totally grossed out. My second was to wonder how people could possibly consider doing anything like this. Then my third reaction was skepticism, and when skepticism kicks in, then I look for alternative possibilities. <br><br>I'm not a scientist, but it occurs to me that there are at least a couple of ways to collect scientific medical information, and the words that pop into my mind are deductively and inductively. Not sure I'm using these words right, but it's what I'm working with in my mind. <br><br>I'm thinking that one way to conduct medical research is to collect information after the fact, trying to draw conclusions on causal relationships based on statistics. Let's take lead poisoning as an example. Public health agencies could become suspicious that something in the enviroment is leading to brain damage in their client populations, develop a hypothesis that lead poisoning causes brain damage, then collate information from blood samples on lead levels from their records, and draw a conclusion that there is a correlation between lead paint and mental retardation or whatever. This hardly constitutes "human experimentation".<br><br>The other way to conduct research is to control all the variables and reproduce their results in a laboratory. THIS would be the arena of "human experimentation". An extreme fantasy example of this would be to put infants in a laboratory setting, controlling their diet, and feeding them paint chips, while doing all the lab tests. <br><br>I don't have a problem with medical people collecting statistics after the fact. I don't even have a problem with minimally invasive techniques being used to test a hypothesis if there is already circumstantial evidence to suggest a correlation. For instance, if there was enough reason to speculate that a mother's drug use during pregnacy leads to autism (made up examlpe), I would have no problem with researchers drawing blood samples from these offspring (many of whom would more often end up in fostercare than the non-drug using population). Where this form begins to smack of human experimentation for me is when there is considerable circumstantial evidence to believe that A is causing B and no potential intervention results to prevent the condition while the test is being conducted.<br><br>I think this deserves more investigation.<br><br> <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 12/10/05 12:53 pm<br></i>