xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7312/531/a
BMJ 2001;323:531 ( 8 September )
News
AIDS expert challenges ethical stance on drug trials
Bryan Christie,
Edinburgh
Measures to protect people in developing countries from being exploited in
medical research trials may prevent some projects going ahead that
could improve the health of poor people, a leading scientist has
warned.
Professor James Whitworth of the Medical Research Council's programme on
AIDS in Uganda said it may not always be practical to test new
treatments against the best treatment currently available anywhere
in the world.
New ethical standards laid down in the revised Declaration of Helsinki last
year stated that testing of drugs in developing countries should be
done against the best current treatment and not against placebo.
This was designed to ensure that local populations would benefit
from trials by gaining access to the best current treatments.
But Professor Whitworth, speaking at the British Association's Festival of
Science this week in Glasgow, said this might prevent some ethical
and necessary research from going ahead.
"The central problem is trying to be as fair as possible in what is an
unfair and unequal world," added Professor Whitworth. "Of
course the same treatment should be available in Nairobi as New
York, but it isn't and it isn't going to be. The medical problems of
the developing world are immense and urgent. We can't wait for
politicians to create global equity.
"It seems a strange sort of logic to stop doing trials in Africa that
are trying to help improve the health of poor people so that people
in rich countries can have peace of mind."
He also questioned the insistence that informed consent should be given in
writing, when such a process may have little validity in some cultures.
"Getting a signature on a piece of paper is nice and can be easily
checked but is actually no guarantee of informed consent. Properly
witnessed verbal consent can be much more valid and relevant," he
said.
© BMJ 2001
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.