From: Ron Kean (ronkean@juno.com)
Date: Thu Jan 28 1999 - 12:42:43 MST
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:32:26 -0500 Ian Goddard <Ian@Goddard.net> writes:
> Also, having read a fair amount of Code, context is
> usually indicted by references to other sections,
> a fact that can make reading some Code a nightmare!
> But no such references existed in 1520 (or 1520(a)),
> which, in context, suggests it was standing alone.
Context means more than just references. The full context of a law would
include all other laws, history, intent, implementation, regulations,
practice, court decisions, scholarly commentary and legislative debate,
to name some.
>
> But I looked around for more meaning of "consent"
> in the U.S. Code and I found a section that seems
> to provide protection (I have no idea when this
> section was passed or if it's been repealed):
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>See: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/980.html
>
>
>UNITED STATES CODE
>TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
>Subtitle A - General Military Law
>PART II - PERSONNEL
>CHAPTER 49 - MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES
>
>S 980. Limitation on use of humans as experimental subjects
>
>Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may not be
>used for research involving a human being as an experimental
>subject unless -
>
> (1) the informed consent of the subject is obtained in
> advance; or
> (2) in the case of research intended to be beneficial to
> the subject, the informed consent of the subject or a legal
> representative of the subject is obtained in advance.
>
>------------------------- END CODE QUOTE ------------------------
>
>
> But this clearly applies only to tests involving
> just "a human being," and continually defines the
> tested as singular. A "civilian population" is not
> "a human being." Also, the above applies only to
> funds appropriated to the DoD. But most important,
> it defines "informed consent" as possibly only
> informing "a legal representative of the subject,"
> which takes us right back to 1520, which only
> required that "civilian officials" be notified,
> which may be why 1520 never referenced 10(980).
>
>
I find it possible to interpret tests on multiple humans to include
testing of a single human. But it would be better if the wording in the
the law made that clearer.
Ron Kean
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:57 MST