![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
SC-02 THE STANDARDS OF CARE DEBATE: SOME PERSPECTIVES FROM THE DEVELOPING WORLD Professor Zulfiqar A. Bhutta The issue of a universal standard of care for research subjects in developing countries was brought to the fore by the controversy surrounding the HIV using ACTG 076 triple therapy versus placebo. This resulted in an acrimonious global debate and a review of exiting ethical review guidelines on the issue. While it can be argued that the principle of beneficence dictates that all research subjects must maximally benefit from planned interventions, the most pervasive arguments supporting the continued use of placebos are based on efficiency and economics. Also the tyranny of the randomized controlled trial precludes any learning from alternative methods of evaluation such as quasi-experimental designs. The standard of care may be seen as the global rather than local standard of care, although others have questioned this. What constitutes a standard therapy in one health system with profligate expenditure on medical practice based on defensive medicine, may be totally inappropriate in another system with limited resources. Thus a reasonable compromise may be seeking the highest attainable local standard rather than an impossible alien and unsustainable alternative. Nevertheless there is a legitimate debate as to what constitutes an acceptable standard? Is it a prevalent local standard or one that is ideal in any given circumstance i.e. a local de-facto versus de-jure standard? Thus the standard of care does not necessarily relate to the most expensive or sophisticated treatment regimen but those that perform best given the local conditions and health systems. Another important issue around the standard of care argument is that it is frequently interpreted in the narrow context of medications or dugs used in trials alone rather than the overall care within the health system. It must be emphasized that the current safeguards and guidelines were largely devised to prevent undue exploitation of vulnerable populations and developing countries. The need is to develop pragmatic and flexible approaches that marry the fundamental principles of beneficence with a public health approach that allows the possibility of incremental benefits. Professor Zulfiqar A. Bhutta |
|||||||||||||