Ética y jurisprudencia administrativa de los derechos de los sujetos de investigación en pandemia (COVID-19): función de los comités éticos científicos: Chile / Ethics and administrative jurisprudence of the rights of subjects of research in pandemic (COVID-19): role of the scientific ethics committees: Chile

RESUMEN: Todo gobierno debe reaccionar rápida y efectivamente ante cualquier pandemia, Chile no es la excepción y apoyado en el estado de Excepción Constitucional, ha tenido que implementar medidas que podrían involucrar poca información sobre las percepciones de las personas y las reacciones durante la implementación de las restricciones. Las instituciones internacionales de salud han determinado que es un deber moral realizar investigaciones que generen evidencia que promuevan y mejoren la atención de la salud y la mitigación de la pandemia, instando a reducir los "obstáculos" prácticos de la revisión ética. Los objetivos de este trabajo fueron analizar desde las perspectivas de las consideraciones éticas y jurídicas, el rol que cumplen los Comités Éticos Científicos en el manejo y la protección de las personas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. La metodología de trabajo se basó en la recolección de la información de Instituciones nacionales e internacionales de Salud y luego analizarla según la jurisprudencia administrativa del gobierno de Chile. Se concluye que los cambios de criterios que deben observar los CECs en el proceso de revisión de los protocolos de los proyectos de investigación científica, deben velar por proteger los derechos de los pacientes y sujetos de investigación en cuanto puede involucrar información sensible, más aún, si se consideran las graves consecuencias de su transgresión, dar un sentido distinto al que corresponda a las normas sobre derechos de pacientes, puede resultar en "falta de servicio" y eventual vulneración en los derechos del sujeto de investigación. La labor de los CEC, debe realizarse siempre desde una interpretación restrictiva, reconociendo la función pública que cumplen como parte integrante de la labor ética encomendada por el legislador al efecto.

SUMMARY: Every government must react quickly and effectively to any pandemic, Chile is no exception and supported by the state of Constitutional Exception, it has had to implement measures that could involve little information about people's perceptions and reactions during the implementation of the restrictions. International health institutions have determined that it is a moral duty to carry out research that generates evidence that promotes and improves health care and the mitigation of the pandemic, urging to reduce the practical "obstacles" to ethical review. The objective of this study was to analyze from the perspectives of ethical and legal considerations, the role that Scientific Ethics Committees play in the management and protection of people during the COVID-19 pandemic. The methodology used was based on collecting information from national and international Health Institutions and then analyzing it according to the administrative jurisprudence of the Chilean government. It is concluded that the changes in criteria that the CECs must observe in the process of reviewing the protocols of scientific research projects, must ensure the protection of the rights of patients and research subjects insofar as it may involve sensitive information, even more if the serious consequences of its transgression are considered. Giving a different meaning to the one that corresponds may result in "lack of service" and eventual violation of the rights of the research subject. The task of the CEC, must always be carried out from a restrictive interpretation, recognizing the public function that they fulfill as an integral part of the ethical work entrusted by the legislators to that effect.

¿Responde la Resolución 8430 de 1993 a las necesidades actuales de la ética de la investigación en salud con seres humanos en Colombia? / Does Resolution 8430 of 1993 respond to the current needs of ethics in health research with human beings in Colombia?

Resumen La verificación del cumplimiento de los principios éticos en la investigación en salud legitima su ejercicio ante la sociedad y posibilita la resolución de dilemas éticos frente a nuevos intereses y métodos de investigación. En Colombia, la Resolución 8430 de 1993 es una de las principales pautas éticas que regulan la investigación en salud. Dado que no ha sido revisada ni actualizada desde su adopción, se hace necesario valorar su vigencia y suficiencia para abordar los potenciales dilemas éticos que se plantean actualmente en la investigación en salud en el país. En este contexto, se detallan algunos vacíos y contradicciones, así como aspectos que requieren de una revisión profunda, a partir de una concepción amplia de las áreas y los métodos de investigación en salud. Tras discutir las principales falencias e imprecisiones, se proponen alternativas para que la Resolución responda a las necesidades actuales del país frente a la ética en investigación en salud con seres humanos.

Abstract Verifying the compliance with the ethical principles of health research legitimizes its exercise in the eyes of the society and allows for the resolution of ethical dilemmas that emerge from new research interests and methods. Resolution 8430 of 1993 is one of the main ethical guidelines governing health research on human beings in Colombia. Considering that the resolution has not been revised or updated since its promulgation it becomes necessary to evaluate its current validity and adequacy to address the potential ethical dilemmas in the existing country's health research. Some gaps, contradictions, and aspects that require a deep review are detailed in this paper from a wide conception of health research areas and methods. After discussing the main weaknesses and inaccuracies, some alternatives are proposed to adjust the resolution to the present needs in health research with human beings.

New regulations on compensation for injury and death in drug trials.

In 2005, the government amended Schedule Y of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Rules, 1945, to liberalise the conduct of global drug trials in India. Proponents of this policy had asserted that we needed less, and not more, regulation, in order to expand the business of drug trials. Many from the medical profession, the bioethics community and civil society groups have been critical of this policy.

Informed consent documents submitted for initial review: What do they state about compensation for injured research participants.

Background : Research carries a small but definite risk of injury to participants. However, there is no unanimity amongst the stakeholders regarding the nature and extent of compensation to be provided to an injured participant. Aims : To determine the extent to which issues related to the provision of free treatment and compensation for research-related injury are addressed in the protocols submitted to Ethics Committees (ECs). Setting and Design : Retrospective review of protocols submitted to two ECs in India. Material and Methods : Initial protocols submitted to two ECs during the calendar years 2007 and 2008 were reviewed. Statements related to treatment and compensations for study-related injury were studied for adequacy regarding provisions for free emergency treatment, and free treatment and compensation for research-related injury. Presence of special conditions, exclusions, and caveats, if any, were noted. Statistical Analysis Used : The proportion of protocols providing free treatment and compensation for research-related injury was presented as a percentage. Results : The Informed Consent Documents (ICD) of 138 protocols were accessed. These included 115 (83.33%) industry-sponsored, 20 (14.49%) government-sponsored and three (2.17%) investigator-initiated projects. Forty-six (33.33%) intended to provide free treatment for a trial-related injury. Forty-two (30.43%) projects did not have any policy about providing treatment for a trial-related injury, whereas several others included statements that intended to provide treatment, but with certain restrictions. Thirty-three (23.91%) ICDs had statements indicating that there was no provision for compensation and 65(47.10%) ICDs stated nothing on the issue. Conclusion : ICDs submitted for initial review are not in conformity with the provisions for treatment of and compensation for research-related injuries enunciated in national guidelines and draft guidelines.