r/BeAmazed • u/mikeyv683 • Jan 22 '25

History Identical triplet brothers, who were separated and adopted at birth, only learned of each other’s existence when 2 of the brothers met while attending the same college

Post image
112.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

66

u/Initial_Hedgehog_631 Jan 23 '25

how did this not generate a law suit? There are some pretty stringent rules on human experiments, namely consent must be given. Children can't give consent.

43

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

Medical Ethics Boards are sort of what came along after shit like this got exposed decades after it went down. Back in the early days, so long as the doctors or scientists were doing it in the name of science, anything they did was considered fine no matter how atrocious and evil.

p.s. We still use orphans as lab rats. Most of the pediatric drugs in the US are trialed on children in foster care or in state care.

31

u/____ozma Jan 23 '25

This is not the case. Wards of the state have equal access to drug trials as regular kids, but cannot be targeted as a population for medical trials, period. This is under the Common Rule, https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/common-rule-subpart-d/index.html#46.409

Foster kids can participate in research specifically about improving foster care (survey research for example), or in situations where they would be receiving treatment as any other child would, e.g. in a school, or for lifesaving medical care, like experimental cancer drugs, or drugs which would improve their specific medical condition, as any other child would.

I work for a review board specifically on studies for this population. We have specialists on the review board that have worked as child advocates, and I personally worked for a child welfare unit before my current job in research. This is federal law and applies everywhere.

4

u/ynotfoster Jan 23 '25

"p.s. We still use orphans as lab rats. Most of the pediatric drugs in the US are trialed on children in foster care or in state care."

What made you believe this to be true?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

Don't know how to google?

https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2193&context=faculty_scholarship

https://www.wcpinst.org/source/panel-examines-protections-for-foster-children-enrolled-in-clinical-trials/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2201985/

https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/article-abstract/32/11/18/24104/Should-foster-children-be-research-subjects?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.fda.gov/science-research/clinical-trials-and-human-subject-protection/additional-protections-children

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-50

4

u/maffy118 Jan 23 '25

These are disingenuous references and do not support your statement that wards are somehow thrown into trials. They're referring to an abuse that happened in the 80s with HIV drugs. The sheer number of your citations was the tip-off, like you had to prove yourself right. But we already had an expert weigh in, so...

This is how disinformation starts. Redditors, READ the reference when someone posts it, especially when they bombard you like this.

0

u/Stoppels Jan 23 '25

What the fuck. Are you sure that goes for 'most' paediatric drugs?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '25

In the US, wards of the state are used in drug trials. Their participation undergoes IRB Review

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/institutional-review-boards-frequently-asked-questions#:\~:text=This%20group%20review%20serves%20an,as%20subjects%20in%20the%20research.

2

u/maffy118 Jan 23 '25

That link is just about IRB review, nothing about wards of the state.

1

u/Leelee_longlegs Jan 23 '25

Which section did it confirm that foster kids are being test subject? I am genuinely curious and I read through the whole thing and there was only one lil section that I thought could have corroborated that truth. I wouldn’t put it past people in this world to use foster or orphaned kids in that regard.

-3

u/AnonymousFruit69 Jan 23 '25

Also, in the name of science, people around the world were given an untested drug to protect them from covid!

We can do anything we want I the name of "science"

Oh it definitely stops you spreading covid if you take the vaccine. Oh actually the vaccine doesn't stop you spreading covid when you are actively infected.

People are going around spreading covid, because they think they can't spread it because they took the vaccine.

Let's lock people in their homes with no contact from the outside. And tell them they can't go to work, can't put food on the table, can't put a roof over their heads unless they take an untested vaccine. But science!

2

u/SticmanStorm Jan 23 '25

The fuck did you want them to do? Yeah lockdowns caused many problems? The alternative was to let COVID spread. The people making the vaccines had to rush it. That was not in the name of science but in the name of dealing with the pandemic as fast as possible

0

u/AnonymousFruit69 Jan 23 '25 edited Jan 23 '25

The science was a social experiment to see how many people would be willing to take an untested vaccine just because they were told to and just how far we can be pushed because someone in authority told us too.. And locked up our homes, with not able to go out, not able to work and facing mental health issues from the isolation. Getting arrested and going to prison for leaving our our homes.

What were they supposed to do? Covid is no more dangerous than a common cold. And now the world went into unnecessary lockdown and mandated vaccines. The world leaders will now admit thry made a mistake. But instead jumped on the opportunity to take to push any agenda they wanted. How about making many billions $$$ from the vaccines for a start!!!

1

u/Killroy32 Jan 23 '25

Everyone I know who has had Covid would say it was far worse than the common cold. I think the millions of dead around the world would agree too.

1

u/Hateithere4abit Jan 23 '25

You have no clue what actually happened

1

u/AnonymousFruit69 Jan 23 '25

None of us have a clue "what really happened"

7

u/AutumnTheFemboy Jan 23 '25

Back then there probably weren’t lol

3

u/PattyRain Jan 23 '25 edited Jan 23 '25

In the movie it said the parents did try to sue, but there were very powerful people involved and the law firm had other clients trying to adopt from the same agency and didn't want to hurt their chances - it was before they found out about the study. 

3

u/SweetSexyRoms Jan 23 '25

The families tried to sue. But the law firms capable of winning the case would eventually say no because they had lawyers in the firm who were on the waiting list at Louise Wise and didn't want to jeopardize their chances of adopting.

1

u/Jimid41 Jan 23 '25

Parents can and do sign their children up for research studies all the time.