A Framework to Link International Clinical Research to the Promotion of Justice in Global Health

How international research might contribute to justice in global health has not been substantively addressed by bioethics. Theories of justice from political philosophy establish obligations for parties from high‐income countries owed to parties from low and middle‐income countries. We have developed a new framework that is based on Jennifer Ruger's health capability paradigm to strengthen the link between international clinical research and justice in global health. The ‘research for health justice’ framework provides direction on three aspects of international clinical research: the research target, research capacity strengthening, and post‐trial benefits. It identifies the obligations of justice owed by national governments, research funders, research sponsors, and investigators to trial participants and host communities. These obligations vary from those currently articulated in international research ethics guidelines. Ethical requirements of a different kind are needed if international clinical research is to advance global health equity.     

Medical Researchers' Ancillary Care Obligations: The Relationship‐Based Approach

In this article, I provide a new account of the basis of medical researchers' ancillary care obligations. Ancillary care in medical research, or medical care that research participants need but that is not required for the validity or safety of a study or to redress research injuries, is a topic that has drawn increasing attention in research ethics over the last ten years. My view, the relationship‐based approach, improves on the main existing theory, Richardson and Belsky's ‘partial‐entrustment model’, by avoiding its problematic restriction on the scope of health needs for which researchers could be obligated to provide ancillary care. Instead, it grounds ancillary care obligations in a wide range of morally relevant features of the researcher‐participant relationship, including the level of engagement between researchers and participants, and weighs these factors against each other. I argue that the level of engagement, that is, the duration and intensity of interactions, between researchers and participants matters for ancillary care because of its connection to the meaningfulness of a relationship, and I suggest that other morally relevant features can be grounded in researchers' role obligations.     

Attitudes toward Post‐Trial Access to Medical Interventions: A Review of Academic Literature,Legislation, and International Guidelines

There is currently no international consensus around post‐trial obligations toward research participants, community members, and host countries. This literature review investigates arguments and attitudes toward post‐trial access. The literature review found that academic discussions focused on the rights of research participants, but offered few practical recommendations for addressing or improving current practices. Similarly, there are few regulations or legislation pertaining to post‐trial access. If regulatory changes are necessary, we need to understand the current arguments, legislation, and attitudes towards post‐trial access and participants and community members. Given that clinical trials conducted in low‐income countries will likely continue, there is an urgent need for consideration of post‐trial benefits for participants, communities, and citizens of host countries. While this issue may not be as pressing in countries where participants have access to healthcare and medicines through public schemes, it is particularly important in regions where this may not be available.     

Mind the gap: An empirical study of post‐trial access in HIV biomedical prevention trials

The principle of providing post‐trial access for research participants to successful products of that research is widely accepted and has been enshrined in various declarations and guidelines. While recent ethical guidelines recognise that the responsibility to provide post‐trial access extends to sponsors, regulators and government bodies as well as to researchers, it is the researchers who have the direct duty of care to participants. Researchers may thus need to act as advocates for trial participants, especially where government bodies, sponsors, and regulatory bodies have complex interests vested in decisions about whether or not new interventions are made available, how, and to whom. This paper provides an empirical account of post‐trial access in the context of HIV prevention research. It describes both access to the successful products of research and the provision antiretroviral drugs for trial participants who acquire HIV. First, we provide evidence that, in the current system, there is considerable variation in the duration and timeliness of access. We then argue that by analysing the difficulties faced by researchers to this point, and their efforts to meet this obligation, much can be learned about how to secure post‐trial access in HIV biomedical preventions trials. While researchers alone have a limited obligation, their advocacy on behalf of trial participants may be necessary to call the other parties to account.     

GOING FROM PRINCIPLES TO RULES IN RESEARCH ETHICS

In research ethics there is a canon regarding what ethical rules ought to be followed by investigators vis‐à‐vis their treatment of subjects and a canon regarding what fundamental ethical principles apply to the endeavor. What I aim to demonstrate here is that several of the rules find no support in the principles. This leaves anyone who would insist that we not abandon those rules in the difficult position of needing to establish that we are nevertheless justified in believing in the validity of the rules. I conclude by arguing that this is not likely to be accomplished. The rules I call into question are the rules requiring:

• – that studies be designed in a scientifically valid way
• – that risks to subjects be minimized
• – that subjects be afforded post‐trial access to experimental interventions
• – that inducements paid to subjects not be counted as a benefit to them
• – that inducements paid to subjects not be ‘undue’
• – that subjects must remain free to withdraw from the study at any time for any reason without penalty

Both canons, the canon on principles and the canon on rules, are found in the overlap among ethical pronouncements that are themselves canonical: the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, CIOMS's International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, and NBAC's 2001 report, Ethical Issues in International Research: Clinical Trials in Developing Countries.     

ACCESS TO TREATMENT IN HIV PREVENTION TRIALS: PERSPECTIVES FROM A SOUTH AFRICAN COMMUNITY

Access to treatment, in HIV vaccine trials (HVTs), remains ethically controversial. In most prevention trials, including in South Africa, participants who seroconvert are referred to publicly funded programmes for treatment. This strategy is problematic when there is inadequate and uneven access to public sector antiretroviral therapy (ART) and support resources. The responsibilities, if any, of researchers, sponsors and public health authorities involved in HVTs has been hotly debated among academics, scholars, representatives of international organizations and sponsors. However, there is little published on community perceptions. Recent guidance asserts that communities should make inputs into treatment and care decisions. This qualitative study explored a South African community's perceptions of who should provide what to HVT participants as well as how and why this should be done. Twenty‐nine adults working at or attending five primary health care clinics in two rural areas in KwaZulu‐Natal participated in in‐depth interviews. Respondents expressed that researchers should ‘help participants to access’ treatment and care ‘because they are in a position to do so’ and ‘are in a relationship with’ trial participants. Respondents suggested that researchers could help by ‘facilitating referral’ until such time that participants can access care and treatment on their own. We highlight a series of implications for researchers in HVTs, including their need to be aware of prospective participants' considerable trust in and respect for researchers, the responsibility that this places on them, and the need for clear communication with communities so as not to erode community trust.     

Reciprocity‐Based Reasons for Benefiting Research Participants: Most Fail,the Most Plausible is Problematic

A common reason for giving research participants post‐trial access (PTA) to the trial intervention appeals to reciprocity, the principle, stated most generally, that if one person benefits a second, the second should reciprocate: benefit the first in return. Many authors consider it obvious that reciprocity supports PTA. Yet their reciprocity principles differ, with many authors apparently unaware of alternative versions. This article is the first to gather the range of reciprocity principles. It finds that: (1) most are false. (2) The most plausible principle, which is also problematic, applies only when participants experience significant net risks or burdens. (3) Seldom does reciprocity support PTA for participants or give researchers stronger reason to benefit participants than equally needy non‐participants. (4) Reciprocity fails to explain the common view that it is bad when participants in a successful trial have benefited from the trial intervention but lack PTA to it.     

POST‐TRIAL ACCESS TO ANTIRETROVIRALS: WHO OWES WHAT TO WHOM?

Many recent articles argue that participants who seroconvert during HIV prevention trials deserve treatment when they develop AIDS, and there is a general consensus that the participants in HIV/AIDS treatment trials should have continuing post‐trial access. As a result, the primary concern of many ethicists and activists has shifted from justifying an obligation to treat trial participants, to working out mechanisms through which treatment could be provided. In this paper I argue that this shift frequently conceals an important assumption: that if there is an obligation to supply treatment, then any party who could provide it may be prevailed upon to discharge the obligation. This assumption is false. The reasons why trial participants should get ART affect who has the duty to provide it. We should not burden governments with the obligations of sponsors, nor researchers with the obligations of the international community. And we should not deprive a group of treatment because their need is less salient than that of research participants. Insisting otherwise may lead to people being wrongfully deprived of access to antiretrovirals.     

Informed consent: study of quality of information given to participants in a clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE--To determine whether the participants in a clinical trial had perceived adequate information about the trial according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. DESIGN--About 18 months after the end of a gynaecological clinical trial the participants received a questionnaire by post, which focused on the quality of the information given to them before entering the trial. Neither researchers nor participants were aware in advance that the trial would become the subject of this follow up investigation. SETTING--Eight different centres in Sweden. SUBJECTS--43 women out of the 53 who completed the trial (mean (range) age 23 (16 to 35) years) returned the questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Adequacy of the information (based on requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki) to enable the following: understanding of the aims of the study; awareness of what participation meant; and awareness of the possibility of withdrawing from participation at any time. Motives for agreeing to participate, and a subjective evaluation of the given information were also recorded. RESULTS--All but one of the participants had been aware that they were taking part in a research project. Five women stated that they had not been aware that a second laparoscopy was performed only for research reasons. Seven women reported that they had not been aware of the meaning of participating in the project and 17 that they had had no information about the possibility of withdrawing from the study whenever they wanted. In the subjective rating 22 women considered the information given as good or very good. There was a systematic variation in the quality of the given information among the eight centres. CONCLUSION--Although all but one of the participants had been aware that they were taking part in a clinical trial, the quality of the information understood and recalled by participants varied, and in many cases clearly did not meet the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Variations among centres in participants'' perception of information suggest that deficiencies in perception may be caused by informers rather than the participants.     

Social value,clinical equipoise,and research in a public health emergency

The 2016 CIOMS International ethical guidelines for health‐related research involving humans states that ‘health‐related research should form an integral part of disaster response’ and that, ‘widespread emergency use [of unproven interventions] with inadequate data collection about patient outcomes must therefore be avoided’ (Guideline 20). This position is defended against two lines of criticism that emerged during the 2014 Ebola outbreak. One holds that desperately ill patients have a moral right to try unvalidated medical interventions (UMIs) and that it is therefore unethical to restrict access to UMIs to the clinical trial context. The second holds that clinical trials in contexts of high‐mortality diseases are morally suspect because equipoise does not exist between a standard of care that offers little prospect of clinical benefit and a UMI that might offer some clinical advantage.     

Realizing benefit sharing - the case of post-study obligations

In 2006, the Indonesian government decided to withhold avian flu samples from the World Health Organization. They argued that even though Indonesian samples were crucial to the development of vaccines, the results of vaccine research would be unaffordable for its citizens. Commentaries on the case varied from alleging blackmail to welcoming this strong stance against alleged exploitation. What is clear is that the concern expressed is related to benefit sharing. Benefit sharing requires resource users to return benefits to resource providers in order to achieve justice. One benefit sharing tool within health research is the duty to provide a health care intervention which has been proven to be beneficial (or alternative benefits) to research participants after a study has been concluded. This duty is generally known as a post-study obligation. It was enshrined in the Declaration of Helsinki in 2000 and re-emphasized in 2008. Yet, there are few, if any, examples of good practice. In this article, we analyse the obstacles to giving more bite to benefit sharing provisions in health research through ethical review. We conclude that the provision of post-study access to healthcare interventions is not a promising mechanism when monitored through research ethics committees. Alternative benefit provision is preferable if one focuses on achieving compliance. However, even the latter faces challenges, which we address in specific recommendations.     

US IRBs confronting research in the developing world

Increasingly, US‐sponsored research is carried out in developing countries, but how US Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) approach the challenges they then face is unclear. METHODS: I conducted in‐depth interviews of about 2 hours each, with 46 IRB chairs, directors, administrators and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs in the United States (US) (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding), and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 (55%). RESULTS: US IRBs face ethical and logistical challenges in interpreting and applying principles and regulations in developing countries, given economic and health disparities, and limited contextual knowledge. These IRBs perceive wide variations in developing world IRBs/RECs' quality, resources and training; and health systems in some countries may have long‐standing practices of corruption. These US IRBs often know little of local contexts, regulations and standards of care, and struggle with understandings of other cultures' differing views of autonomy, and risks and benefits of daily life. US IRBs thus face difficult decisions, including how to interpret principles, how much to pay subjects and how much sustainability to require from researchers. IRB responses and solutions include trying to maintain higher standards for developing world research, obtain cultural expertise, build IRB infrastructure abroad, communicate with foreign IRBs, and ‘negotiate’ for maximum benefits for participants and fearing ‘worst‐case scenarios’. CONCLUSIONS: US and foreign IRBs confront a series of tensions and dilemmas in reviewing developing world research. These data have important implications for increased education of IRBs/RECs and researchers in the US and abroad, and for research and practice.     

Adjusting the focus: A public health ethics approach to data research

This paper contends that a research ethics approach to the regulation of health data research is unhelpful in the era of population‐level research and big data because it results in a primary focus on consent (meta‐, broad, dynamic and/or specific consent). Two recent guidelines – the 2016 WMA Declaration of Taipei on ethical considerations regarding health databases and biobanks and the revised CIOMS International ethical guidelines for health‐related research involving humans – both focus on the growing reliance on health data for research. But as research ethics documents, they remain (to varying degrees) focused on consent and individual control of data use. Many current and future uses of health data make individual consent impractical, if not impossible. Many of the risks of secondary data use apply to communities and stakeholders rather than individual data subjects. Shifting from a research ethics perspective to a public health lens brings a different set of issues into view: how are the benefits and burdens of data use distributed, how can data research empower communities, who has legitimate decision‐making capacity? I propose that a public health ethics framework – based on public benefit, proportionality, equity, trust and accountability – provides more appropriate tools for assessing the ethical uses of health data. The main advantage of a public health approach for data research is that it is more likely to foster debate about power, justice and equity and to highlight the complexity of deciding when data use is in the public interest.     

BENEFITS TO RESEARCH SUBJECTS IN INTERNATIONAL TRIALS: DO THEY REDUCE EXPLOITATION OR INCREASE UNDUE INDUCEMENT?

There is an alleged tension between undue inducement and exploitation in research trials. This paper considers claims that increasing the benefits to research subjects enrolled in international, externally‐sponsored clinical trials should be avoided on the grounds that it may result in the undue inducement of research subjects. It proceeds from the premise that there are good grounds for thinking that, at least some, international research sponsors exploit trial participants because they do not provide the research population with a fair share of the benefits of research. This provides a prima facie argument for increasing the benefits for research participants. Concern over undue inducement is a legitimate moral concern; however, if this concern is to prevent research populations from receiving their fair share of benefits from research there must be sufficient evidence that these benefits will unduly influence patients’ decision‐making regarding trial participation. This article contributes to the debate about exploitation versus undue inducement by introducing an analysis of the available empirical research into research participants’ motivations and the influence of payments on research subjects’ behaviour and risk assessment. Admittedly, the available research in this field is limited, but the research that has been conducted suggests that financial rewards do not distort research subjects’ behaviour or blind them to the risks involved with research. Therefore, I conclude that research sponsors should prioritise the prevention of exploitation in international research by providing greater benefits to research participants.     

Identifying and evaluating layers of vulnerability – a way forward

“Vulnerability” is a key concept for research ethics and public health ethics. This term can be discussed from either a conceptual or a practical perspective. I previously proposed the metaphor of layers to understand how this concept functions from the conceptual perspective in human research. In this paper I will clarify how my analysis includes other definitions of vulnerability. Then, I will take the practical‐ethical perspective, rejecting the usefulness of taxonomies to analyze vulnerabilities. My proposal specifies two steps and provides a procedural guide to help rank layers. I introduce the notion of cascade vulnerability and outline the dispositional nature of layers of vulnerability to underscore the importance of identifying their stimulus condition. In addition, I identify three kinds of obligations and some strategies to implement them. This strategy outlines the normative force of harmful layers of vulnerability. It offers concrete guidance. It contributes substantial content to the practical sphere but it does not simplify or idealize research subjects, research context or public health challenges.     

The Challenges of Research Informed Consent in Socio‐Economically Vulnerable Populations: A Viewpoint From the Democratic Republic of Congo

In medical research, the ethical principle of respect for persons is operationalized into the process of informed consent. The consent tools should be contextualized and adapted to the different socio‐cultural environment, especially when research crosses the traditional boundaries and reaches poor communities. We look at the challenges experienced in the malaria Quinact trial, conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and describe some lessons learned, related to the definition of acceptable representative, the role of independent witness and the impact of socio‐economic vulnerability. To ensure children's protection, consent is required by the parents or, in their absence, by a legally mandated representative. In our setting, children's responsibility is often entrusted permanently or temporarily to relatives or friends without a tribunal mandate. Hence, a notion of ‘culturally acceptable representative’ under supervision of the local Ethics Committee may be more suitable. To ensure protection of illiterate subjects, an independent witness is required to confirm that the consent was freely given. However, in low‐literacy contexts, potential witnesses often don't have any previous relationship with patient and there may be power‐unbalance in their relationship, rather than genuine dialogue. In poor communities, trial participation may be seen as an opportunity to secure access to healthcare. Poverty may also lead to ‘competition’ to access the research‐related benefits, with a risk of disturbance at societal or household level. Adjusting consent procedures to sociocultural and socioeconomic realities is essential for fulfilling the underlying ethical principles. This requires a collaborative dialogue between researchers, regulators and ethics committees.     

A critique of the principle of ‘respect for autonomy’, grounded in African thought

I give an account how the principle of ‘respect for autonomy’ dominates the field of bioethics, and how it came to triumph over its competitors, ‘respect for persons’ and ‘respect for free power of choice’. I argue that ‘respect for autonomy’ is unsatisfactory as a basic principle of bioethics because it is grounded in too individualistic a worldview, citing concerns of African theorists and other communitarians who claim that the principle fails to acknowledge the fundamental importance of understanding persons within the nexus of their communal relationships. I defend the claim that ‘respect for persons’ is a more appropriate principle, as it is able to acknowledge both individual decision making and the essential relationality of persons. I acknowledge that my preference for ‘respect for persons’ is problematic because of the important debate around the definition of ‘personhood’ in bioethics discourse. Relying on Thaddeus Metz's conception of moral status, I propose a relational definition of personhood that distinguishes between persons with agency and persons without agency, arguing that we have different moral obligations to these distinct categories of persons. I claim that this conception of personhood is better able to accommodate our moral intuitions than conventional approaches, and that it is able to do so without being speciesist or question‐begging.     

Illegitimate authorship and flawed procedures: Fundamental,formal criticisms of the Declaration of Helsinki

Some of the recent criticisms published during and after the last revision process of the Declaration of Helsinki are directed at its basic legitimacy. In this article we want to have a closer look at the two criticisms we consider to be the most fundamental. The first criticism questions the legitimate authorship of the World Medical Association to publish a document such as the Declaration. The second fundamental criticism we want to examine argues that the last revision process failed to meet the standards for fair, democratic procedures. Although both criticisms deny the formal legitimacy of the Declaration in the most fundamental way, they have never been addressed in detail in a single article. We refute most of the related arguments. However, acknowledging some of the points made, improvements for future revision processes and versions of the Declaration of Helsinki are outlined.     

Ethical analysis of cadaver supply and usage processes for research within the scope of the Helsinki Declaration

Recent technological developments have considerably transformed the supply, storage, and transportation processes of cadavers, creating new and previously unforeseen ethical challenges regarding cadaver usage. In this study, we analyzed two aspects of the cadaver processing system—cadaver supply and its use in research. Thereafter, we highlighted the major ethical concerns underlying these stages and correlated our search results with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (DoH), or Helsinki Declaration. To ensure the reliability and continuity of medical progress, human—especially cadaver—research depends on the ethical priorities as outlined in the DoH: respect for autonomy, privacy/confidentiality, risks/burdens/benefits, and the protection of vulnerable groups. According to our ethics analysis, which also corresponds with the ethics guidelines of the Consensus Panel on Research with the Recently Dead, the most ignored values were respect for autonomy and privacy/confidentiality issues. Based on these ethical concerns, we provide recommendations to address these challenges in anatomy research.