This paper discusses the post-trial access to drugs for patients who participated in clinical trials in Brazil. The ethical guidance for clinical trials in Brazil is arguably one of the clearest in the world in attributing to research sponsors the responsibility for providing post-trial drugs to patients who participated in their experiments. The Federal Constitution recognizes health as a fundamental right to be fulfilled by the State. Based on the Brazilian constitution and on the National Health Council resolutions, courts have (...) been accepting patients' claims and ordering the State and the pharmaceutical companies to provide these patients with the tested treatment in the quantity and duration they need it. This generous interpretation of the duties of the pharmaceutical companies and the State makes the Brazilian model for post-trial access unique when compared to the experience of other countries and thus should be followed with attention by future research in order to assess its consequences for patients, research sponsors, and the public health system. (shrink)

This paper discusses so-called post-trial access to drugs for patients who participated in clinical trials in Brazil. Brazil is currently a relevant country for the pharmaceutical industry due to the dimensions of its actual and potential market. As a consequence, the number of pharmaceutical trials has been rising. It is the largest market for pharmaceutical companies in Latin America, the 8th biggest in the world and second only to China among the so-called BRICS’s emerging countries. The demand for pharmaceutical products (...) in the country has been increasing by double digits over the last few years, reaching 20% in 2008. Not surprisingly, we are also witnessing a steady increase in the number of applications by national and international pharmaceutical companies before ethical research authorities for authorization to perform clinical trials of drugs. (shrink)

Background : researchers and sponsors increasingly confront the issue of whether participants in a clinical trial should have post-trial access (PTA) to the trial drug. Legislation and guidelines are inconsistent, ambiguous or silent about many aspects of PTA. Recent research highlights the potential importance of systematic reviews (SRs) of reason-based literatures in informing decision-making in medicine, medical research and health policy. Purpose: to systematically review reasons why drug trial participants should, or need not be ensured PTA to the trial drug (...) and the uses of such reasons. Data sources: databases in science/medicine, law and ethics, thesis databases, bibliographies, research ethics books and included publications’ notes/bibliographies. Publication selection: a publication was included if it included a reason as above. See article for detailed inclusion conditions. Data extraction and analysis: two reviewers extracted and analyzed data on publications and reasons. Results: of 2060 publications identified, 75 were included. These mentioned reasons based on morality, legality, interests/incentives, or practicality, comprising 36 broad (235 narrow) types of reason. None of the included publications, which included informal reviews and reports by official bodies, mentioned more than 22 broad (59 narrow) types. For many reasons, publications differed about the reason’s interpretation, implications and/or persuasiveness. Publications differed also regarding costs, feasibility and legality of PTA. Limitations: reason types could be applied differently. The quality of reasons was not measured. Conclusion: this review captured a greater variety of reasons and of their uses than any included publication. Decisions based on informal reviews or sub-sets of literature are likely to be biased. Research is needed on PTA ethics, costs, feasibility and legality and on assessing the quality of reason-based literature. (shrink)

Purpose We examine the levels of post-trial responsibility ascribed to different stakeholders, following a community-based clinical trial and how the ‘responsibility’ is understood. Methods We employed photovoice, unstructured observations and key informant interviews to gain insights into contexts of access to care following transition to the public health system post trial. We used an inductive narrative analysis to explore experiences and understandings of post-trial access. Results In their photovoice stories, many participants expressed a sense of abandonment after the trial. This (...) was viewed as a contributing factor to failing to re-engage with care available in the public health system. This led to the experiences of loss as some trial participants defaulted and died. Research investigators, department of health participants and sponsor agreed that PTA was especially important for communities in resource-limited settings. The government has an obligation towards its citizens while researchers have a responsibility to ensure a smooth transition of patients to public clinics. Sponsors have a responsibility to ensure that the trial is conducted in accordance with the protocol and post-trial agreements are in place and adhered to. Research partnerships among stakeholders were affected by power imbalances making it difficult to negotiate and plan for post-trial care responsibilities. Conclusions The research community still struggles with understanding the scope of PTA responsibilities. Power dynamics between public health actors and research sponsors need to be managed to ensure that government involvement is not tokenistic. The responsibility of trial participants and ethics committees needs to be investigated further. Data are available upon request. (shrink)

The general aim of this article is to give a critical interpretation of post-trial obligations towards individual research participants in the Declaration of Helsinki 2013. Transitioning research participants to the appropriate health care when a research study ends is a global problem. The publication of a new version of the Declaration of Helsinki is a great opportunity to discuss it. In my view, the Declaration of Helsinki 2013 identifies at least two clearly different types of post-trial obligations, specifically, access to (...) care after research and access to information after research. The agents entitled to receive post-trial access are the individual participants in research studies. The Declaration identifies the sponsors, researchers and host country governments as the main agents responsible for complying with the post-trial obligations mentioned above. To justify this interpretation of post-trial obligations, I first introduce a classification of post-trial obligations and illustrate its application with examples from post-trial ethics literature. I then make a brief reconstruction of the formulations of post-trial obligations of the Declaration of Helsinki from 2000 to 2008 to correlate the changes with some of the most salient ethical arguments. Finally I advance a critical interpretation of the latest formulation of post-trial obligations. I defend the view that paragraph 34 of ‘Post-trial provisions’ is an improved formulation by comparison with earlier versions, especially for identifying responsible agents and abandoning ambiguous ‘fair benefit’ language. However, I criticize the disappearance of ‘access to other appropriate care’ present in the Declaration since 2004 and the narrow scope given to obligations of access to information after research. (shrink)

Research Ethics, Volume 18, Issue 2, Page 132-150, April 2022. Limited research has been done among pregnant people participating in investigational drug trials. To enhance the ethical understanding of pregnant people’s perspectives on research participation, we sought to describe motives and risk perceptions of participants in a phase 1 trial of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir treatment for chronic Hepatitis C virus during pregnancy. Pregnant people with chronic HCV infection enrolled in an open-label, phase 1 study of LDV/SOF participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews to (...) explore their reasons for participation and experiences within the study. Pregnant people took 12 weeks of LDV/SOF and were interviewed at enrollment and at the end of study. We recorded the interviews, transcribed them verbatim, coded them using NVivo software, and performed inductive thematic analysis. Nine women completed the study yielding 18 interview transcripts. We identified two themes regarding motives and one regarding risk perception. Motives— Women conceptualized study participation as part of the caregiving role they associate with motherhood; participating was viewed as an act of caregiving for their infants, their families, themselves, and other pregnant women with chronic HCV. Women also noted that they faced multiple barriers to treatment prior to pregnancy that created a desire to receive therapy through trial participation. Risk perception— Women acknowledged personal and fetal risk associated with participation. Acceptance of risk was influenced by women’s concepts of motherhood, preexisting knowledge of HCV and medical research, family members, intimate partners, or by the study design. Women enrolled in a phase 1 trial for chronic HCV therapy during pregnancy acknowledged risks of participation and were motivated by hopes for fetal and personal benefit and by lack of prenatal access to treatment. Ethical inclusion of pregnant people in research should acknowledge structural factors that contribute to vulnerability and data deficiencies for treatment in pregnancy. (shrink)

Limited research has been done among pregnant people participating in investigational drug trials. To enhance the ethical understanding of pregnant people’s perspectives on research participation, we sought to describe motives and risk perceptions of participants in a phase 1 trial of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir treatment for chronic Hepatitis C virus during pregnancy. Pregnant people with chronic HCV infection enrolled in an open-label, phase 1 study of LDV/SOF participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews to explore their reasons for participation and experiences within the study. (...) Pregnant people took 12 weeks of LDV/SOF and were interviewed at enrollment and at the end of study. We recorded the interviews, transcribed them verbatim, coded them using NVivo software, and performed inductive thematic analysis. Nine women completed the study yielding 18 interview transcripts. We identified two themes regarding motives and one regarding risk perception. Motives— Women conceptualized study participation as part of the caregiving role they associate with motherhood; participating was viewed as an act of caregiving for their infants, their families, themselves, and other pregnant women with chronic HCV. Women also noted that they faced multiple barriers to treatment prior to pregnancy that created a desire to receive therapy through trial participation. Risk perception— Women acknowledged personal and fetal risk associated with participation. Acceptance of risk was influenced by women’s concepts of motherhood, preexisting knowledge of HCV and medical research, family members, intimate partners, or by the study design. Women enrolled in a phase 1 trial for chronic HCV therapy during pregnancy acknowledged risks of participation and were motivated by hopes for fetal and personal benefit and by lack of prenatal access to treatment. Ethical inclusion of pregnant people in research should acknowledge structural factors that contribute to vulnerability and data deficiencies for treatment in pregnancy. (shrink)

The ethical value—and to some scholars, necessity—of providing trial patients with post-trial access (PTA) to an investigational drug has been subject to significant attention in the field of research ethics. Although no consensus has emerged, it seems clear that, in some trial contexts, various factors make PTA particularly appropriate. We outline the atypical aspects of psychedelic clinical trials that support the case for introducing the provision of PTA within research in this field, including the broader legal status of psychedelics, the (...) nature of the researcher-therapist/participant relationship, and the extended time-frame of the full therapeutic process. As is increasingly understood, the efficacy of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy is driven as much by extrapharmacological elements and the cultural therapeutic container as by the drug itself. As such, we also advocate for a refocusing of attention from post-trial access to a broader concept encompassing other elements of post-trial care. We provide an overview of some of the potential post-trial care provisions that may be appropriate in psychedelic clinical trials. Although the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki calls on researchers, sponsors, and governments to make provisions for post-trial access, such provision may feel impracticable or out-of-reach within psychedelic trials that are already constrained by a high resource demand and significant bureaucratic burden. We show how conceiving of post-trial provision as an integral site of the research process, and an appropriate destination for research funding, will serve to develop the infrastructure necessary for the post-legalisation psychedelic medicine ecosystem. (shrink)

BackgroundThe nature of the relationship between a clinical investigator and a research subject has generated considerable debate because the investigator occupies two distinct roles: clinician and scientist. As a clinician, the investigator has duties to provide the patient with optimal care and undivided loyalty. As a scientist, the investigator has duties to follow the rules, procedures and methods described in the protocol.Results and conclusionIn this article, I present a contextual approach to the investigator-subject relationship. The extent of the investigator's duty (...) to provide the patient/subject with clinical care can vary from one situation to the next, as a function of several factors, including: the research design, benefits and risks of the research; the subject's reasonable expectations, motivations, and vulnerabilities; the investigator's ability to benefit the subject; and the investigator's prior relationship with the subject. These and other factors need to be considered when determining the clinical investigator's obligations to provide clinical care to human research subjects. In some research contexts, the investigator has extensive clinical obligations to the patient/subject; in others, the investigator has minimal ones. (shrink)

Objectives To analyse the perspective of clinical research stakeholders concerning post-trial access to study medication. Methods Questionnaires and informed consents were sent through e-mail to 599 ethics committee (EC) members, 290 clinical investigators (HIV/AIDS and Diabetes) and 53 sponsors in Brazil. Investigators were also asked to submit the questionnaire to their research patients. Two reminders were sent to participants. Results The response rate was 21%, 20% and 45% in EC, investigators and sponsors’ groups, respectively. 54 patients answered the questionnaire through (...) their doctors. The least informative item in the consent form was how to obtain the study medication after trial. If a benefit were demonstrated in the study, 60% of research participants and 35% of EC answered that all patients should continue receiving study medication after trial; 43% of investigators believed the medication should be given to participants, and 40% to subjects who participated and benefited from treatment. For 50% of the sponsors, study medication should be assured to participants who had benefited from treatment. The majority of responders answered that medication should be provided free by sponsors; investigators and sponsors believed the medication should be kept until available in the public health sector; EC members said that the patient should keep the benefit; patients answered that benefits should be assured for life. Conclusions Due to the study limitations, the results cannot be generalised; however, the data can contribute to discussion of this complex topic through analysing the views of stakeholders in clinical research in Brazil. (shrink)

BackgroundWhile ethicists have for many years called for human subject trial participants and, in some cases, local community members to benefit from participation in pharmaceutical and other intervention-based therapies, little is known about how these discussions are impacting the practice of research ethics boards that grant ethical approval to many of these studies.MethodsTelephone interviews were conducted with 23 REB members from across Canada, a major funder country for human subject research internationally. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. After (...) coding, the data was analyzed to identify central themes and topics. Themes were identified, application of the themes was confirmed, and these themes were then used to populate the findings of this manuscript.ResultsOur analysis of the interviews identified two primary themes when considering what benefits are owed to research participants and their communities. 1) Most study participants felt that given that these studies are led by persons in the role of researcher rather than health care provider, they had a limited obligation to provide benefits to study participants. 2) These REB members were all working in Canada, a high income country where most residents enjoy high levels of access to health care. As a result of this context, the study participants tended to focus on ethical concerns including obtaining informed consent and avoiding undue inducement to participate in research rather than ensuring that study participants directly benefit from successful trials.ConclusionsResearch on REB members’ attitudes toward what benefits are owed to study participants and community members is needed in other countries in order to determine how context affects these attitudes. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

Biobanks are increasingly being created specifically for research purposes. Concomitantly, we are seeing significant and evolving shifts in research ethics in relation to biobanking. Three discrete shifts are identified in this article. The first extends the ethical focus beyond the protection of human subjects to the promotion of broader community benefits of research utilizing biobanked resources, and an expectation that these benefits will be shared. The second involves the evolution of the traditional consent paradigm for future research uses of biobanks (...) resources that are not in contemplation at the time of donation. The third involves a move away from single project management to more dynamic governance accountability to research participants and the public. These shifts may take different local and institutional forms but share common recognizable elements. (shrink)

This paper discusses the need to focus on the dignity of human participants as a legal and ethical basis for providing post-trial access to healthcare. Debate about post-trial benefits has mostly focused on access to products or interventions proven to be effective in clinical trials. However, such access may be modelled on a broad fair benefits framework that emphasises both collateral benefits and interventional products of research, instead of prescribed post-trial access alone. The wording of the current version of the (...) Declaration of Helsinki could in fact be interpreted to broaden the scope to include other collateral benefits by applying such a broad fair benefits framework. We argue that this possibility should be utilised by low and middle income countries’ health research ethics committees in order to ensure that research participants who enrol in clinical trials so as to receive medical care continue to access care after the trial is concluded, as befits their dignity. Although each LMIC has unique concerns, nonetheless there are common challenges based especially on emerging issues, such as post-trial access to healthcare. Accordingly, the South African perspective is used to draw lessons that can benefit other LMICs. (shrink)

Biomedical research is increasingly carried out in low- and middle-income countries. International consensus has largely been achieved around the importance of valid consent and protecting research participants from harm. But what are the responsibilities of researchers and funders to share the benefits of their research with research participants and their communities? After setting out the legal, ethical and conceptual frameworks for benefit sharing, this collection analyses seven historical cases to identify the ethical and policy challenges that arise in relation to (...) benefit sharing. A series of recommendations address possible ways forward to achieve justice for research participants in low- and middle-income countries. (shrink)

This chapter concerns the normativity of the concepts of paternalism and libertarian paternalism. The first concept is central in evaluating public health policy, but its meaning is controversial. The second concept is equally controversial and has received much attention recently. It may or may not shape the future evaluation of public health policy. In order to facilitate honest and fruitful debate, I consider three approaches to these concepts, in terms of their normativity. Concepts, I claim, may be considered nonnormative, normatively (...) charged, or normative in that they involve more complex relationships between values or duties. While the last approach is often best, other approaches may be appropriate depending on the context and purpose of discussion. The chapter’s conceptual investigation is illustrated by application to two public health policies: a tax on the consumption of fat and the encouragement of health-promoting food displays in restaurants and supermarkets. (shrink)

Todos los días se prueban nuevos psicofármacos, tratamientos para el VIH/SIDA o el cáncer, entre otras enfermedades. Algunos de esos tratamientos son lo suficientemente exitosos como para cronificar enfermedades antes consideradas mortales, como los antirretrovirales para el VIH/SIDA o el imatinib para la leucemia mieloide a principios del 2000. No obstante, antes de que puedan ser comercializados o estar disponibles en los sistemas de salud pública, deben pasar por una serie de rigurosas pruebas de calidad, seguridad y eficacia. Estas pruebas (...) implican el testeo de las drogas en animales y su estudio en seres humanos, sanos o enfermos. Estrictas normas de buenas prácticas científicas y éticas regulan todo el proceso de las investigaciones biomédicas. El problema de mi tesis se centra en el momento de la finalización de los estudios en seres humanos. Alguien podría preguntarse qué pasa con las personas si se benefician clínicamente del tratamiento experimental durante el estudio cuando este finaliza. La interrupción abrupta de un tratamiento beneficioso podría poner en peligro la salud de los sujetos. Y en el caso de sujetos de investigación afectados por enfermedades crónicas, es probable que deban continuar con el tratamiento beneficioso u otra atención adecuada por el resto de sus vidas. Un sujeto de investigación estadounidense sin seguro de salud que participó en un estudio de largo plazo de diabetes resume estas preocupaciones: "de repente cortan la cuerda, y uno está solo por su cuenta ... O conseguís trescientos o cuatrocientos dólares por mes para seguir con esto o simplemente seguís adelante y morís". Este tipo de casos me llevaron a preguntar si existe alguna obligación moral de proveer el tratamiento beneficioso a un sujeto de investigación que no puede pagárselo. Muchas personas podrían pensar que interrumpir el tratamiento beneficioso al sujeto de investigación que padece de diabetes y no tiene seguro para cubrir un tratamiento es incorrecto, porque nadie debería morir de una enfermedad o dedicar todos los recursos disponibles para sobrevivir, especialmente cuando se contribuyó a encontrar una cura o a obtener la evidencia científica necesaria para desarrollar un mejor tratamiento que el existente. Otras personas podrían pensar que lo correcto es ofrecer el tratamiento a un "precio justo", y si la persona no puede pagar por la continuidad de tratamiento es su responsabilidad. Mi intuición es que una sociedad democrática justa tiene una obligación moral de establecer un sistema de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso para los sujetos de investigación. En esta tesis intento justificar filosóficamente esta última intuición básica utilizando el marco teórico de la teoría de la justicia de Rawls. Elijo utilizar la teoría rawlsiana, porque esta teoría me permite ubicar los problemas morales con respecto a la continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso en su contexto social adecuado y en el contexto de la búsqueda general de una sociedad más justa. En particular, la encuentro especialmente adecuada para explicar fenómenos complejos de responsabilidad social como los que creo que subyacen en el problema de la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso hacia los sujetos de investigación. Como mostraré más adelante, es imposible tener en cuenta los aspectos morales de la continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso aislada de la sociedad en la que se realizan los estudios con seres humanos. En el capítulo 1 presento una introducción general al tema de la ética de la investigación y al problema de la continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso. En el capítulo 2 intento determinar el campo de estudio de la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso hacia los sujetos de investigación. Para eso, mi estrategia es la siguiente. Primero, busco identificar los casos de estudios clínicos donde se daría la obligación de continuidad beneficiosa hacia los sujetos de investigación. Segundo, presento el problema de la justificación moral de la obligación de continuidad y la necesidad de discutir las justificaciones basadas en la idea de justicia como reciprocidad. Para esto, en la sección 2, identifico la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento a través de una selección de sus casos paradigmáticos en la literatura. Comienzo con el caso de los estudios clínicos con antirretrovirales llevados a cabo en Sudáfrica en personas con VIH/SIDA. Luego, introduzco el concepto teórico de sistema de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso. Este concepto me permite evaluar y comparar teóricamente cómo diferentes sociedades hacen frente al problema de proveer la continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso a los sujetos de investigación. Por último, rastreo los casos ejemplares de obligación de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso hacia los sujetos en países desarrollados, con énfasis especial en los Estados Unidos. En la sección 3, analizo algunos problemas de confusión o ambigüedad más importantes en torno a la obligación. Primero, analizo el nombre de la obligación. Luego, trato de distinguir la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento hacia los sujetos de investigación de la obligación de disponibilidad razonable, una confusión muy común en la literatura de la ética de la investigación. Finalmente, me detengo a analizar una posible ambigüedad en el concepto de "tratamiento beneficioso" y utilizo algunos de los casos paradigmáticos identificados para argumentar a favor de mi interpretación. Atacado el primer problema, en la sección 4 y 5 me vuelco a relevar el problema de la justificación moral de la obligación de continuidad. En la sección 4, reconstruyo lo que llamo la "versión simple" del concepto de obligación a partir de la discusión sobre las fuentes de la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso. Luego, planteo la necesidad de investigar las justificaciones basadas en la idea de justicia como reciprocidad debido a las ambigüedades y la falta de un marco teórico claro dentro del campo de la ética de la investigación en seres humanos. Finalmente, en la sección 5, introduzco algunas distinciones clásicas con el fin de complejizar el marco teórico de las obligaciones, el cual será utilizado en la discusión de los próximos dos capítulos. En el capítulo 3 discuto la justificación de la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento que da el modelo económico de Alan Wertheimer. En la sección 1 del capítulo, debido a lo específico del tema y lo poco conocido del autor, introduzco a la persona y el contexto institucional de su obra. En la sección 2 del capítulo, distingo tres interpretaciones del concepto de justicia como reciprocidad e intento mostrar que Wertheimer utiliza una interpretación caracterizada por el uso mutuo y el intercambio de beneficios, a la cual llamo "reciprocidad de mercado". En la sección 3, presento el marco teórico del modelo económico. La pregunta fundamental de Wertheimer es la siguiente: ¿tienen los investigadores o patrocinadores una obligación supercontractual de proporcionar la continuidad de tratamiento u otros beneficios a los sujetos de investigación? Según el autor, el consenso en ética de la investigación responde de manera afirmativa a esta pregunta y como fundamento de esta obligación se encontraría lo que Wertheimer llama "el principio de interacción". Analizo este principio y presento las críticas que hace Wertheimer al mismo. En la sección 4, presento la respuesta a la pregunta fundamental que da Wertheimer mediante su "argumento estratégico". En la sección 5 analizo la solución dada por Wertheimer e intento explicar algunos de los supuestos principales del modelo, a saber, (i) la lógica del argumento estratégico, (ii) la fuerza moral de los conceptos de Pareto y (iii) el compromiso del modelo económico con la restricción de la información. Por último, en la sección 6 presento mis críticas al modelo económico. En el capítulo 4 presento el modelo de reciprocidad democrática, inspirado en la teoría de la justicia de Rawls. Este modelo se presenta como un marco teórico y una interpretación de la justicia como reciprocidad alternativos al modelo económico presentado en el capítulo anterior. En la sección 2 del presente capítulo, explicito los problemas del marco teórico relacionados con el concepto de justicia como reciprocidad que subyacen a la discusión sobre la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso hacia los sujetos de investigación. Para esto, me centro en tres puntos: (i) la relación del principio de justicia como reciprocidad y el concepto de obligación; (ii) el problema del alcance del principio de reciprocidad, y (iii) la relación entre el principio de reciprocidad y el concepto de equidad, o lo que llamo "el problema de la medida de la reciprocidad". En la sección 3, defino con mayor claridad el enfoque rawlsiano de la justicia distributiva y expongo una crítica a los argumentos antirrawlsianos esgrimidos por los defensores del modelo económico que afirman que los principios de justicia política de Rawls no se aplican a los individuos. Si mi respuesta a los defensores del modelo económico es correcta, los principios de justicia política se aplican a los individuos de manera indirecta, mediante la asignación de obligaciones posicionales por parte de la estructura básica de instituciones de una sociedad democrática, y permiten garantizar igual justicia a todos los miembros de la sociedad. En la sección 4, presento mi propuesta original de cómo entender la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso hacia los sujetos de investigación. Esta sería una obligación posicional perfecta correlativa con el derecho a la salud en sociedades democráticas justas o moderadamente injustas. En la sección 5, muestro de manera detallada el mecanismo apropiado para extender los principios de justicia política al caso de la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento beneficioso hacia los sujetos de investigación. Con este objetivo, introduzco la idea de secuencia en cuatro etapas, que permite evaluar y diseñar nuevos esquemas institucionales para dar contenido a la obligación de continuidad de tratamiento. Y presento los principios de obligaciones y deberes individuales, que cierran el sistema rawlsiano brindando razones morales a los individuos para extender los esquemas institucionales justos a nuevas situaciones, reformar los existentes y cumplir con las obligaciones posicionales asignadas por estos nuevos esquemas. Por último, en la sección 6, discuto las objeciones más importantes al modelo de justificación de reciprocidad democrática. Por último, en la conclusión general, hago un intento de aplicación del marco teórico del modelo de reciprocidad democrática al análisis de los sistemas de continuidad de tratamiento para países como Argentina o Brasil y presento las líneas más importantes para la investigación futura. (shrink)

En el año 2000 se publica la quinta revisión de la Declaración de Helsinki con el objetivo de responder a nuevos problemas éticos producidos en la última década por las investigaciones biomédicas realizadas en países en desarrollo. Una de las innovaciones más importantes que presenta la Declaración es la formulación del principio ético de acceso post investigación obligatorio para los participantes. En el presente trabajo, comienzo con la exposición del estado del consenso internacional sobre el carácter obligatorio del acceso post (...) investigación, de acuerdo con las guías y documentos de países desarrollados y en desarrollo. Luego, reconstruyo la justificación ética del principio de acceso post investigación y discuto algunos argumentos que se han presentado en su contra. De esta forma, defiendo la idea de que el acceso post investigación a las intervenciones probadas efectivas debe ser obligatorio siempre que los participantes se beneficien de las mismas y no tengan un acceso alternativo a ellas. (shrink)