The Ethics of medical trials need some soul searching

How can a pre-vocal infant tell you they have a side effect in a trial?

Photo credit: Unsplash:CC0 Public domain (cropped)

I would like there to be a ban on all testing of new treatments on HEALTHY individuals who are not able to communicate.

I also would call for a systematic re-evaluation of medicines that have been authorised based solely on trials with participants that could not communicate side effects.

If we consider the issue carefully it is ethically untenable to give a foreign substance or unnatural treatment to a HEALTHY infant who cannot voice a side effect. They are not able to offer consent and they cannot even provide meaningful data for the trial which causes the side effects to appear LESS simply because the trial subject is not able to REPORT them.

Especially prophylactic treatments promoted to healthy individuals must be exceedingly effective in UNBIASED TRIALS amongst the verbal population and somehow essential for infants before they would be considered for their use.

Yes, we will have to grandfather what we have now and then start re-evaluation from the products with the GREATEST REPORTED HARMS and with a lot of soul searching and NOT grant searching we should consider if infants should remain targets for the treatment.

There is no longer any justification for pretending that trials do not cause side effects. Should someone be ill and want to take part in a trial that is fine. Should one be healthy and take part in a trial against some payment in kind that too is fine.

However using healthy infants as test subjects who cannot voice consent or a side effect can no longer be allowed to happen.