Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 23
Filter
1.
Int. j. morphol ; 39(3): 785-788, jun. 2021.
Article in Spanish | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1855936

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Humans , Ethics Committees, Research , COVID-19 , Human Experimentation/legislation & jurisprudence , Human Experimentation/ethics , Chile , Patient Rights , Biomedical Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Biomedical Research/ethics , Research Subjects/legislation & jurisprudence , Pandemics
9.
Ethics Hum Res ; 43(3): 42-44, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1135094

ABSTRACT

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, ethicists, researchers, and journalists have recommended studies that deliberately infect healthy volunteers with the coronavirus as a scientific means of expediting vaccine development. In this essay, we trace the history of infection challenge experiments and reflect on the Nuremberg Code of 1947, issued in response to brutal human experiments conducted by Nazi investigators in concentration camps. We argue that the Code continues to offer valuable guidance for assessing the ethics of this controversial form of research, with respect particularly to the acceptable limits to research risks and the social value of research necessary to justify exposing human participants to these risks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Human Experimentation/ethics , SARS-CoV-2 , Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Human Experimentation/history , Humans , National Socialism/history
10.
Hastings Cent Rep ; 50(4): 9-11, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-635679

ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 crisis has underscored the importance of the collection and analysis of clinical and research data and specimens for ongoing work. The federal government recently completed a related revision of the human subjects research regulations, founded in the traditional principles of research ethics, but in this commentary, we argue that the analysis underpinning this revision overemphasized the importance of informed consent, given the low risks of secondary research. Governing the interests of a community is different from governing the interests of individuals, and here we suggest that, moving forward, the analyses of the risks of secondary research protocols be assessed from the perspective of the former.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/ethics , COVID-19 , Informed Consent/ethics , Research Subjects , Ethics Committees, Research , Federal Government , Government Regulation , Human Experimentation/ethics , Humans , Policy Making , Research Design
14.
Vaccine ; 39(4): 633-640, 2021 01 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-894255

ABSTRACT

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/ethics , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , Human Experimentation/ethics , Informed Consent/ethics , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Ethics Committees, Research/organization & administration , Healthy Volunteers , Human Experimentation/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Patient Selection/ethics , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Vaccination/ethics , World Health Organization , COVID-19 Drug Treatment
18.
Daru ; 28(2): 807-812, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-734041

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The pandemic associated with the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus continues to spread worldwide. The most favorable epidemic control scenario, which provides long-term protection against COVID-19 outbreak, is the development and distribution of an effective and safe vaccine. The need to develop a new COVID-19 vaccine is pressing; however, it is likely to take a long time, possibly several years. This is due to the time required to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the proposed vaccine. and the time required to manufacture and distribute millions of doses. OBJECTIVES: To accelerate this development and associated safety testing, the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers has been suggested. The purpose of this short communication is to describe the ethical aspects of this type of testing, RESULTS: Deliberate infection of volunteers with a dangerous virus such as SARS-CoV-2 was initially considered unethical by researchers; but the current pandemic is so different from previous ones that these studies are considered ethical if certain criteria are met. Participants in human challenge studies must be relatively young, in good health and must receive the highest quality medical care, with frequent monitoring. Tests should also be performed with great caution and specialized medical supervision. Besides, the fact that obtaining vaccines faster through deliberate infection studies of healthy people has greater benefits than risks, has been demonstrated by obtaining other vaccines in other historical pandemics such as: smallpox, influenza, malaria, typhoid fever, Dengue fever and Zika. CONCLUSIONS: One possibility to shorten the time required for the development of COVID-19 vaccines is to reduce clinical phases II and III by using human challenge studies through eliberate infection of healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 after administration of the candidate vaccine. Accelerating the development of a COVID-19 vaccine even for a few weeks or months would have a great beneficial impact on public health by saving many lives.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Animals , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Human Experimentation/ethics , Humans , Time Factors
19.
Biologicals ; 67: 69-74, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-712934

ABSTRACT

This second International Alliance for Biological Standardization COVID-19 webinar brought together a broad range of international stakeholders, including academia, regulators, funders and industry, with a considerable participation from low- and middle-income countries, to discuss the use of controlled human infection models to accelerate development and market authorization assessment of a vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Drug Development/ethics , Human Experimentation/ethics , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Viral Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Drug Development/legislation & jurisprudence , Human Experimentation/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Quality Control , Reference Standards , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL