Consent Form Approval By Parents Or Guardians: Fill & Download for Free

I was hired as a creative director for the digital arm of a big ad agency in 2006. The Iraq War was an unmitigated mess at this point, and one of the agency’s clients was a branch of the US military.The US military was having a tough time recruiting, especially younger volunteers just out of high school. I forget the exact regs involved, but military recruits under a certain age (17 years old) could only sign up with written permission from a parent or guardian.So my team was tasked with solving the client’s two problems:Convince more 17 year-old kids to enlist into an active, unpopular war in IraqGet their mothers to consent to their child’s military enlistment decision, which they widely and firmly opposed by defaultThe agency and the branch did research that found everything we put online that attracted the teens (shooting, explosions, choppers, sandy battlefields) were the things mothers hated most. The kids would visit a recruiting site or watch a recruiting video online, get excited, and show the video or site to their Mom… who would see it and say ‘no way!’.Somebody at the agency proposed trying ‘segmented messaging’ — a common technique where one product is described in different ways, then targeted at the market segment where that positioning resonates. (Mobile phones are marketed to kids with all the social media and video aspects up front — but the same phones are marketed to parents as safety devices that allow them to stay in touch with their kids.)So the recruitment plan was to show the bombs and guns content to the kids… and at the end, provide a share they could send to their Mom.This is where it got evil: the URL and video link we sent to Mom wasn’t the site or video their too-young-to-vote child went to.This was all-new content for the Mom: bright-eyed soldiers delivering food and medicine to earthquake victims. Soldiers in scientific labs, digging water wells for (non-desert) villages with cheering, grateful locals. Career opportunities. Camaraderie. Free college.No guns. No explosions. Not a hint of battle or conflict. Not Iraq.The campaign showed a ton of promise in the first phases of testing: more Mom approval, more kids volunteering to blow stuff up.I was disgusted. I should have raised more ruckus than I did, but I asked to be taken off the project. When my request was denied, I resigned. I never saw the campaign in public, but I’m pretty certain it launched and obtained the consent of many, many mothers to send their children to Iraq using disturbingly deceptive and misleading methods. Evil.

There are many excellent answers here. Since ethics, and especially bioethics, is often a murky field with many variables to be considered, it's always useful to have different perspectives.However, this case is very clear-cut in my mind: it would be ethically wrong to bring back a Neanderthal, and such research proposal would never be approved by any institutional ethics committee.Here is why: human beings are not objects, and human experimentation requires consent. This is assuming the research project has been approved by the institution that will carry out the research. Even if one could find people that would consent to be beheaded to see the brain response immediately following decapitation, this research will never take place. There are rules in place to protect people from themselves as well.The Neanderthal cloning project has another huge hurdle: the research would involve a baby. You cannot create a full grown Neanderthal, you will need a modern human embryo (or egg and sperm), to change all the relevant gene variants that would make an approximation of a Neanderthal genome. Babies cannot give consent, so only their parents or legal guardians can. There are many more rules in place regarding children as research subjects, that block parents from simply "selling" or "giving away" their children for experimental research (Monty Python's The Meaning of The Life brilliantly illustrated it with their particular brand of dark humor, when an overwhelmed father of dozens of children selects a few to send way for "medical experimentation"). So even if a woman volunteered to carry a genetically modified embryo with Neanderthal gene variants, no ethics committee would approve the research.Human experimentation is allowed only with the purpose of finding a given benefit such as curing a disease or an abnormality that creates suffering. The purpose of cloning a Neanderthal would be pure curiosity. Sure, I would love to travel back in time and meet the Neanderthals, and have precise answers to many questions, but scientific curiosity, even if it could potentially lead to advances, does not justify using humans as objects, against their will. In the case of a Neanderthal, it would be even more irresponsible: we have no idea how the immune system of a Neanderthal baby will react to modern pathogens, we have no idea how his/hers cognitive capabilities would play out in our world. There are too many unknowns. Even if we could ensure a perfectly healthy baby, she would be considered a freak by many and would always be conscious that she came into this world as an object to be used for someone else's purpose.I have not heard a single argument against considering Neanderthals as fully human, so I have addressed this from a purely human experimental protocol perspective.But for people who would argue that Neanderthals are no different than chimps, even animal experimentation needs to be approved by an ethics committee and needs to have a clear beneficial purpose for humanity. Animals are sentient. Chimpanzees are very close to us, even if they are not human, and the rules for using them as research subjects are even stricter than for other animals, with many people advocating banning their use as research subjects, something that I completely agree with.

Anyone above the age of 16 years can take the IELTS test. If you wish to study, work or migrate to the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand and study or work in the US, you can take this test.According to the GMAT eligibility criteria, the official lower limit set by GMAC is 18 years. Nevertheless, aspirants between the ages of 13 and 17 are allowed to appear for the exam on producing a written consent/approval from their parent or legal guardian.