在未经父母许可的情况下,将男男性行为者(AMSM)纳入艾滋病毒预防和治疗研究至关重要,但经常面临障碍。我们研究了最近的机构审查委员会(IRB)对HIV治疗和预防研究的审查案例,该研究要求在四个美国站点放弃父母的许可,但每个机构都收到了不同的答复。IRB在是否以及如何权衡父母权利与AMSM权利以及个人和社会福利方面存在差异,和潜在的危害(例如,如果父母不赞成青少年的性行为)。一位IRB“提出”了接受大学总法律顾问办公室(OGC)建议的决定,尽管州法律允许未成年人在未经父母许可的情况下同意接受艾滋病毒检测和治疗。另一位IRB咨询了该大学的首席合规官(CCO),认为豁免不符合州法律,其中讨论了“性病”,“但不是艾滋病毒。大学律师可能有相互竞争的优先事项,然而,从而对相关法律进行不同的解释。这个案子引起了人们的关注,强调AMSM倡导者的需求,研究人员,IRB和其他机构,政府,和社区层面来教育政策制定者,公共卫生部门,IRB椅子,成员,和工作人员,OGC和CCO关于这些问题。
Including adolescent men who have sex with men (AMSM) in HIV prevention and treatment studies without parental permission is vital, but has often faced barriers. We examine the
case of recent Institutional Review Boards (IRB) reviews of an HIV treatment and prevention study that requested waiving parental permission at four United States sites, but received different responses from each institution. IRBs varied in whether and how they weighed parental rights against AMSMs\' rights and individual and social benefits, and potential harms (e.g., if a parent disapproves of the adolescents\' sexual behavior). One IRB \"tabled\" the decision to receive advice from the university Office of General Counsel (OGC), despite state laws allowing minors to consent to HIV testing and treatment without parental permission. Another IRB consulted the university\'s Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), which thought the waiver was inconsistent with state law, which discusses \"venereal disease,\" but not HIV. University attorneys may have competing priorities, however, and thus interpret relevant laws differently. This
case raises critical concerns, highlighting needs for advocates for AMSM, researchers, IRBs and others at institutional, governmental, and community levels to educate policymakers, public health departments, IRB chairs, members, and staff, OGCs and CCOs about these issues.