An Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel charged with reviewing the system for overseeing research involving children concluded in 2004 that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), institutions engaged in research, and study sponsors should “adopt explicit written policies on acceptable and unacceptable types and amounts of payments related to [children’s] research participation.” We previously reported data on practices and policies in the U.S. regarding payments to children who participate in research and their parents. Here, we report additional results from our study and identify some of the decisions that must be made in developing payment plans and on which payment policies will be expected to offer guidance. We conclude that further conceptual analysis and empirical research are necessary before IRBs, institutions, and sponsors can develop specific rules on numerous aspects of payment. Nevertheless, payment policies that promote the ethical treatment of children in research and their parents can be developed. We propose a structure for such policies.

What the Doctor Didn’t Say, by Jerry Menikoff and Edward P. Richards, is a courageous and well-written volume that examines some of the fundamental debates pertaining to the ethics of clinical research. The volume deserves a careful reading by anyone with a potential role in clinical research: clinicians who might serve as investigators or refer patients to clinical trials; research staff; Institutional Review Board (IRB) members and administrators; sponsors who design clinical trials; and the book’s intended audience, namely, potential research participants and their families. A cursory reading of this volume might lead one to think that Menikoff and Richards have declared war on clinical research. They have not. Instead, they offer an in-depth study of the conduct and oversight of clinical research through the lens of law and ethics. They shed light on old issues and initiate discussion of new questions, challenging readers to think critically about the relationship between medical ethics, research ethics, the law, and the conduct of clinical research.

Pharmacists with religious or ethical objections to prescribing emergency contraception won the latest round in the fight over conscience clauses in a case that could have broader implications for attempts to restrict access to contraception. In Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, a federal District Court in Washington State granted an injunction to block the enforcement of regulations that would have forbidden pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception on the grounds of religious or ethical objections. In its decision, the court applied Supreme Court abortion precedent without explicitly ruling whether emergency contraception should be legally categorized as a form of abortion or as contraception. However, the legal status of emergency contraception affects the strength of the defendants’ claims that the law was justified on the grounds of preventing sex discrimination. In neglecting to rule one way or the other, the court not only failed to adequately consider the sex discrimination claim but also may have opened the door to more restrictive regulation on contraceptives generally.

If Justice Louis Brandeis were alive to witness San Francisco’s recent experiment with universal health care legislation, he might amend his famous characterization of the states as “laboratories of democracy” to include municipalities as well. In San Francisco, where ten percent of residents have no health insurance and where fifteen percent of businesses provide no health coverage for their employees, the Board of Supervisors recently passed the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance (Ordinance), which funds a network of primary care services for uninsured residents. While the Ordinance has, in the main, met with general approval, its provision mandating contributions from local businesses that do not meet minimum health spending requirements is the subject of ongoing litigation. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in the city’s favor, thereby allowing the spending provision to go forward pending a full appeal on the merits of the case.