Bioethical standards for attaining fairer international investigations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26512/rbb.v8i1-4.7772Keywords:
International investigation. Distribution of benefits.Justice. Bioethics.Abstract
The lack of fair distribution of benefits in international biomedical investigations sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry has been the subject of great controversy. Much of bioethical reflection has been conducted from focuses that do not take into account the contexts of great injustice within which these investigations are carried out, thus validating the divorce that exists between the biomedical and social fields. In this review, a contextual critical bioethical approach and a list of bioethical rules for attaining fairer international investigations are presented. These rules translate into a series of guidelines through which the pharmaceutical industry can generate authentic wellbeing, with a fairer design for healthcare investigation policies and creation of an ethical culture among the investigators.
Downloads
References
Benatar SR. Avoiding Explotation in Clinical Research. Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics. 2000;9:562-565.
Macklin R. Ética de La investigacion internacional: El problema de La justicia hacia los países menos desarrollados. Acta Bioeth. 2004;10(1):27- 35.
Glantz LH, Annas GJ, Grodin MA, Mariner WK. Research in Developing Countries: Taking “ Benefit ” Seriously. Hastings Cent Rep. 1998 ; 6 (28) : 38-42.
Participants in the 2001 conference on ethical aspects of research in developing countries. Moral Standards for Research in Developing Countries: from “reasonable availability” to “fair benefits”. Hastings Cent Rep. 2004;34(3):17-27.
London AJ. Justice and the Human Development Approach to International Research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2005;35(1):24-37.
Powers MR, Faden RR. Social Justice. The moral foundations of public health and health policy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
Petryna A. When Experiments Travel. Clinical Trials and the Global Search for Human Subjects. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 2009.
Glickman SW, McHutchison JG, Peterson ED, Cairns CB, Harrington RA, Califf RM, Schulman KA, et al. Ethical and scientific implications of the globalization of clinical research. N Engl JMed. 2009; 360:816-823.
Páez R. Pautas bioéticas. La industria farmacéutica entre la ciencia y el mercado. México D.F.: Seminario de Ética y Bioética, UNAM - Fondo de Cultura Económica. En prensa.
Drews J. In Quest of Tomorrow’s Medicines. New York: Springer; 2003.
Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance ”“ Clinical Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry. N Engl JMed. 2000;342:1539-1544.
Angell M. The Truth About the Drug Companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House; 2004.
Pignarre P. El gran secreto de la industria farmacéutica. Barcelona: Gedisa; 2005.
Gilbert S [internet]. Industry Funding of Research: Assessing the Harms ”“ [consultado en 12/set/2009]. Disponible en: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=3488.
World Health Organization. Investing in health research and development: report of the ad hoc committee on health research relating to future intervention options. Geneva: WHO/TDR;1996.
Global Forum for Health Research [internet]. 10/90 Gap Geneve: GFHR 2012 ”“ [consultado en 12/set/2012]. Disponible en:http://www.globalforumhealth.org/about/1090-gap/.
Ballantyne A. Benefits to international subjects in international trials: do they reduce explotation or increase undue inducement? Dev World Bioeth. 2008;8 (3):178-191.
Laurell AC. La reforma contra la salud y la seguridad social. Ciudad de Mexico: Ediciones Era; 1997.
González R [internet]. México destina sólo 0.4% del PIB a la investigación científica. La
Jornada On Line ”“ [consultado en 12/set/2012]. Disponible en: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/05/10/index.php?section=economia&article=028n1eco (acesso em 12/Set/2012).
Comisión Coordinadora de Institutos Nacionales de Salud y Hospitales de Alta Especialidad [internet]. Programa de Acción Específico 2007-2012. Investigación para la salud. Secretaria de Salud ”“ [consultado en 12/set/2012]. Disponible en: http://www.pediatria.gob.mx/paeips.pdf.
World Health Organization. Priorities for research to take forward the health equity policy agenda: WHO task force on research priorities for equity in health. Bulletin of the WHO 2005;12:948-953.
Cordera R [internet]. La desigualdad marca nuestra historia ”“ [consultado en 12/set/2012]. Disponible en: http://www.rolandocordera.org.mx/index.htm.
Páez R, García de Alba J. International Research and Just Sharing of Benefits in Mexico. Develop World Bioeth. 2009 Aug;9(2):65-73.
Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences [internet]. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects ”“ [consultado en 13/set/2012]. Disponible en: http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf.
Emmanuel EJ. A World of Research Subjects. Hastings Cent Rep. 1998;28(6):25.
Crouch RA, Arras JD. AZT Trials and Tribulations. Hastings Cent Rep. 1998;28(6):26-34.
London AJ, Zollman KJ. Research at the Auction Block. Problems for the Fair Benefits Approach to Inernational Research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2010;40(4):34-45.
Páez R. La investigación internacional en seres humanos: de la justicia distributiva a la justicia social. Revista de Bioética y Derecho 2012 Feb; 24: 20-30.
Páez R. Justa distribución de beneficios en las declaraciones internacionales de ética en investigación. Salud pública Méx. 2012 Dic;54(6):637-643.
Macklin R. After Helsinki: unresolved issues in international research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2001;11(1):17-36.
Pogge T. Harnessing the power of pharmaceutical innovation. In: Cohen JC, Illingworth P, Schüklenk U, editors. The Power of Pills. Social, Ethical & Legal Issues in Drug Development, marketing & Pricing. London: Pluto Press; 2006. p.142-149.
Stirner B. Stimulating research and development of pharmaceutical industry products for neglected diseases. Eur J Health Law. 2008;4:391-409.
Zurita VR. Farmacoeconomía: una herramienta potencial para la toma de decisiones. El Cotidiano. 2001;107(17):47-52.
London AJ. Responsiveness to host community health needs. In: Emanuel E, Grady Ch, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendle D, editors. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. p.737-744.
Presidential commission for the study of bioethical issues [internet]. Research across borders. proceedings of the international research panel of the presidential commission for the study of bioethical issues ”“ [consultado en 13/set/2012]. Disponible en: http://www.bioethics.gov/cms/taxonomy/term/16.
World Health Organization Commission on Social Determinants of Health [internet]. Final report. Closing the Gap in a Generation. Health Equity Throrough Action in Social Determinants of Health. Geneve 2008 [consultado en 13/set/2012]. Disponible en: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/final_report/closing_the_gap_how_en.pdf
Niëns LM, Cameron A, Van de Poel E, Ewen M, Brouwer WBF, et al. Quantifying the Impoverishing Effects of Purchasing Medicines: A Cross-Country Comparison of the Affordability of Medicines in the Developing World. PLoS Med 7(8): e1000333. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000333.
Spurling GK, Mansfield PR, Montgomery BD, Lexchin J, Doust J, et al. Information from Pharmaceutical Companies and the Quality, Quantity, and Cost of Physicians’ Prescribing: A Systematic Review. PLoS Med 7(10): e1000352. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000352.
Vidal S. Acerca de la independencia de los Comités de Ética de la Investigación. Jurisprudencia Argentina. 2004;9:51-58.Recebido: 30/06/2012 Aprovado: 29/11/2012
