This doesn’t trigger the physician’s rule because it doesn’t breach either of the necessary conditions presented. It’s only necessary that a study be likely to reveal important information, not the most important information.

This doesn’t trigger the physician’s rule. If anything, it affirms that at least one of the necessary conditions—that giving synthetic HGH to children is known to be minimally risky—would actually be met.

This doesn’t trigger the rule in the physician’s argument. Informed consent doesn’t play any role in why the physician thinks the study should be prohibited.

This doesn’t trigger the physician’s rule. It’s entirely possible that a study on hormone imbalances could reveal important information about related medical conditions, so this doesn’t breach a necessary condition.

In other words, we don’t know the risks of the study, which would breach the necessary condition that the study be known to pose only a minimal risk. This triggers the physician’s rule and bridges to the conclusion that the study should be prohibited.