26/09/03

One ethical standard, not two

We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:

You have to credit our authors.
You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.

For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

<div class="article-wrap">
<div id="article-introduction">
<h1>One ethical standard, not two</h1>
<h4></h4>
</div>
<br />
<br />

<div id="article-body">
<p><P>Last week, the World Medical Association (WMA) failed to amend the Declaration of Helsinki on treatment provision after a study ends. The amendment that stalled the WMA meeting was to ensure access to the “best proven” therapy identified in a study (see <a href="/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1019&language=1" target=_self rel="noopener noreferrer">Delayed decision on Helsinki declaration</A>).</P><br />
<P>The language of the clause in question — paragraph 30 — is opposed by the US government and western pharmaceutical companies, who have been pressuring the WMA to change the wording (for example, by talking about “every effort to ensure” provision of treatment). They say that paragraph 30 unfairly burdens researchers and their sponsors with responsibilities that should lie with the local health-care system.</P><br />
<P>Yet, according to this <em>Lancet</em> editorial, paragraph 30 articulates the important ethical principle that patients in a trial in the developing world should reap the same benefits as those in the developed world. The article argues that the required ethical standard is beyond debate, and that researchers and trial sponsors from the western world should stop dwelling on their own problems and get to grips with what it is like to be ill in a resource-poor country.</P><br />
<P><a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol362/iss9389/full/llan.362.9389.editorial_and_review.27312.1" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Link to article in <em>The Lancet</em></A>*</P><br />
<P>Reference: <em>The Lancet</em> 362, 1005 (2003)<BR><BR>* Free registration is required to view this article.</P></p>

</div>
<div class="quick-links-wrapper">
<h3>You might also like</h3>
[related-articles]
</div>
<p>This article was originally published on <a href="https://www.scidev.net" target="_blank">SciDev.Net</a>. Read the <a href="https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/one-ethical-standard-not-two/" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
(function(e,t,n,r,i,s,o){e["GoogleAnalyticsObject"]=i;e[i]=e[i]||function(){(e[i].q=e[i].q||[]).push(arguments)},e[i].l=1*new Date;s=t.createElement(n),o=t.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];s.async=1;s.src=r;o.parentNode.insertBefore(s,o)})(window,document,"script","//www.google-analytics.com/ga.js","ga");var _gaq=_gaq||[];var _gaq=_gaq||[];_gaq.push(["_setAccount","UA-3223906-8"],["_trackEvent","article interaction","republished","https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/one-ethical-standard-not-two/",null,true])
</script>
</div>

Last week, the World Medical Association (WMA) failed to amend the Declaration of Helsinki on treatment provision after a study ends. The amendment that stalled the WMA meeting was to ensure access to the “best proven” therapy identified in a study (see Delayed decision on Helsinki declaration).

The language of the clause in question — paragraph 30 — is opposed by the US government and western pharmaceutical companies, who have been pressuring the WMA to change the wording (for example, by talking about “every effort to ensure” provision of treatment). They say that paragraph 30 unfairly burdens researchers and their sponsors with responsibilities that should lie with the local health-care system.

Yet, according to this Lancet editorial, paragraph 30 articulates the important ethical principle that patients in a trial in the developing world should reap the same benefits as those in the developed world. The article argues that the required ethical standard is beyond debate, and that researchers and trial sponsors from the western world should stop dwelling on their own problems and get to grips with what it is like to be ill in a resource-poor country.

Link to article in The Lancet*

Reference: The Lancet 362, 1005 (2003)

* Free registration is required to view this article.