Re: WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a “serious breach of international ethical standards”
Dear Editor,
To give one group of individuals an intervention and to refrain from giving it to another comparable group of people without telling them that it is for the purpose of determining which course of action has the better outcome is unacceptable, unethical and disrespectful of a person`s right to autonomy. It is unjust, disrespectful of a person`s dignity, It flouts human rights. For trialists and any individuals in public authority, financed by others, to turn a blind eye to this fundamental tenet of ethical research must be challenged.
There is a parallel here [1] with what is happening in the AgeX Breast Screening Trial [2] where many thousands of women are unaware that they are being used as mere counters in an experiment under the guise of testing a hypothesis with an intervention that has known harms..
There seems to be a curious reluctance to expose these malpractices, seemingly for legal reasons. Why is there reluctance to call these powerful organisations to account? Rather, there seem to be attempts to justify using unsuspecting citizens without their knowledge, full understanding or consent for all participants. The phrase “speaking truth to power” springs to mind. Unfortunately, what is legal may sometimes be neither ethically nor morally right.
[1] Peter Doshi. WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a “serious breach of international ethical standards” BMJ 2020;368:m734
[1] Bewley S, Blennerhassett M, Payne M. Cost of extending the NHS breast screening age range in England. BMJ 2019;365:l1293
Competing interests:
No competing interests
03 March 2020
Hazel Thornton
Honorary Visiting Fellow, Department of Health Sciences
Rapid Response:
Re: WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a “serious breach of international ethical standards”
Dear Editor,
To give one group of individuals an intervention and to refrain from giving it to another comparable group of people without telling them that it is for the purpose of determining which course of action has the better outcome is unacceptable, unethical and disrespectful of a person`s right to autonomy. It is unjust, disrespectful of a person`s dignity, It flouts human rights. For trialists and any individuals in public authority, financed by others, to turn a blind eye to this fundamental tenet of ethical research must be challenged.
There is a parallel here [1] with what is happening in the AgeX Breast Screening Trial [2] where many thousands of women are unaware that they are being used as mere counters in an experiment under the guise of testing a hypothesis with an intervention that has known harms..
There seems to be a curious reluctance to expose these malpractices, seemingly for legal reasons. Why is there reluctance to call these powerful organisations to account? Rather, there seem to be attempts to justify using unsuspecting citizens without their knowledge, full understanding or consent for all participants. The phrase “speaking truth to power” springs to mind. Unfortunately, what is legal may sometimes be neither ethically nor morally right.
[1] Peter Doshi. WHO’s malaria vaccine study represents a “serious breach of international ethical standards” BMJ 2020;368:m734
[1] Bewley S, Blennerhassett M, Payne M. Cost of extending the NHS breast screening age range in England. BMJ 2019;365:l1293
Competing interests: No competing interests