medigraphic.com

2021, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Revista Colombiana de Bioética 2021; 16 (1)

Is the tyranny of the Ethics committees in health research a reality?

Trillos-Peña CE

Language: Spanish
References: 41
Page:
PDF size: 155.85 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purpose/Context. In the present article is made an analysis of the role that the ethics and research committees must fulfill to protect the volunteers who participate in the studies. This without forgetting their functions on research promotion and generation of knowledge as a social responsibility, which over time has been distorted.
Methodology/Approach. I review the evolution of ethics in research, which arises as a response to bad practices that undermined human dignity. That press to rethink the way we investigate, with the emergence of international standards, recommendations and legal regulations that promoted informed consent and the establishment of research ethics committees.
Results/Findings. As part of sequence analysis, shows how these organisms have become important now. In many parts of the planet cannot research without the approval of the committees. This goes in favor of the subjects in the investigation, but with bad handling, and inadequate must generate an exercise of power, with tyranny.
Discussion/Conclusions/Contributions. This analysis and reflection are based on the global bioethics of Henk ten Have. The author works about these and takes into account the responsibility and duty of research as a global and inter- generational responsibility, which we must exercise as citizens of the world.


REFERENCES

  1. Asociación Mundial Médica. 1964. “Declaration of Helsinki. Recommendationsguiding doctors in clinical research.” https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/DoH-Jun1964.pdf

  2. Asociación Mundial Médica. 1975. “Declaration of Helsinki. Recommendationsguiding medical doctors in biomedical research involving human subjects.”https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/DoH-Oct1975.pdf

  3. Asociación Mundial Médica. 2013. “Declaración de Helsinki de la AMM - Principioséticos para las investigaciones médicas en seres humanos.” https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/

  4. Asociación Mundial Médica. 2016. “Declaración de la AMM sobre las consideracioneséticas de las bases de datos de salud y los biobancos.” https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-la-amm-sobre-las-consideraciones-eticasde-las-bases-de-datos-de-salud-y-los-biobancos/

  5. Arango-Bayer, Gloria Lucía. 2013. “Los comités de ética en investigación en lasuniversidades: ¿verdugos, víctimas o aliados de los estudiantes investigadores?”En Retos y dilemas de los comités de ética en investigación, editado por Alberto VélezVan Meerbeke, Angela María Ruiz Sternberg y Martha Rocio Torres Narvaez,35-49. Bogotá: Editorial Universidad del Rosario.

  6. Beauchamp, Tom L. y James. F. Childress. 1999. Principios de Ética Biomédica. Barcelona:Masson.

  7. Breault, Joseph L 2006. “Protecting human research subjects: the past defines thefuture.” Ochsner J 6, no. 1: 15-20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21765779/

  8. Breckler, Steven. 2005. “A frenzy is building over the behavior of many InstitutionalReview Boards (IRBs).” https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2005/11/ed-column

  9. Carey, Malcom. 2019. “The Tyranny of Ethics? Political challenges and tensions whenapplying ethical governance to qualitative social work research.” Ethics and socialwelfare 13, no. 2: 150-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2018.1548630

  10. Organización Panamericana de la Salud y Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionalesde las Ciencias Médica. 2016. Pautas éticas internacionales para la investigaciónrelacionada con la salud con seres humanos. Ginebra: Consejo de OrganizacionesInternacionales. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/CIOMS-EthicalGuideline_SP_INTERIOR-FINAL.pdf

  11. Comstock, George W. 2001. “Cohort analysis: W.H. Frost’s contributions to theepidemiology of tuberculosis and chronic disease.” Soz Präventivmed 46: 7–12.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01318793

  12. Coughlin, Steven S., Amyre Barker y Angus Dawson. 2012. “Ethics and ScientificIntegrity in Public Health, Epidemiological and Clinical Research.” Public HealthRev 34, no. 1: 71-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391657

  13. Fleischman, Alan R. 2005. “Regulating research with human subjects-is the systembroken?” Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 116: 91-101. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1473133/

  14. Gall, Thomas, John P. A. Ioannidis y Zacharias Maniadis. 2017. “The credibilitycrisis in research: Can economics tools help?” PLoS 15: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001846

  15. Gasparyan, Armen Yuri, Bekaidar Nurmashev, Marlen Yessirkepov, Elena E. Udovik,Aleksandr A. Baryshnikov y George D. Kitas. 2017. “The Journal ImpactFactor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach.”J Korean Med Sci 32: 73-179. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.2.173

  16. Gelling, Leslie. 1999. “Role of the research ethics committee.” Nurse Educ Today 7:564-569. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.1999.0349

  17. Ghooi, Ravindra B. 2011. “The Nuremberg Code-A critique.” Perspect Clin Res 2,no. 2: 72-76. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.80371

  18. Gracia, Diego. 1998. Ética y Vida 4: Profesión médica, investigación y justicia sanitaria.Bogotá: Editorial el Búho.

  19. The International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticalsfor Human Use (ICH). 2019. ICH Guidelines. https://www.ich.org/products/guidelines.html

  20. Invima. 2012. “ABC Guía Comité de Ética en Investigación.” https://paginaweb.invima.gov.co/images/pdf/tecnovigilancia/buenas_practicas/ABC%20Comites%20de%20etica.pdf

  21. Kim, Won Oak. 2012. “Institutional review board (IRB) and ethical issues in clinicalresearch.” Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 62, no. 1: 3-12. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2012.62.1.3

  22. Kuhn, Thomas. 2013. La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. México: Fondo deCultura Económica.

  23. Maya Mejía, José M. 2013. “Comités de ética en investigación: generalidades.” EnRetos y dilemas de los comités de ética en investigación, editado por Alberto VélezVan Meerbeke, Angela María Ruiz Sternberg y Martha Rocio Torres Narvaez,1-10. Bogotá: Editorial Universidad del Rosario.

  24. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and BehavioralResearch. 1979. “The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles and Guidelinesfor the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.” https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html

  25. Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). 2009. Research ethics committees. Basicconcepts for capacity-building. Ginebra: OMS.

  26. Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS). 2012. Pautas y orientación operativapara la revisión ética de la investigación en salud con seres humanos. Washington: OPS.

  27. Perrin, Andrew. 2012. “IRB nightmares.” Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference,and Social Science. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2012/10/18/irb-nightmares/

  28. Real Academia Española. 2016. “Tiranía.” En Diccionario panhispánico del español jurídico.Madrid: Real Academia Española. https://dej.rae.es/lema/tiran%C3%ADa

  29. Resnik, David B. 2018. “Research Ethics Timeline (1932-Present).” https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/timeline/index.cfm

  30. Sayers, Gwen M. 2007. “Should research ethics committees be told how to think?”J Med Ethics 33, no. 1: 39-42. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.014688

  31. Shuster, Evelyne. 1997. “Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the NurembergCode.” New England Journal of Medicine 337, no. 20: 1436-1440. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006

  32. Steneck, Nicholas H., Tony Mayer, Melissa S. Anderson y Sabine Kleinert. 2018.“The origin, objectives, and evolution of the World Conferences on ResearchIntegrity.” En Scientific Integrity and Ethics in the Geosciences, editado por Linda C.Gundersen, 3-14: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119067825.ch1

  33. Ten Have, Henk. 2016a. “Sharing the world. Common perspectives.” En GlobalBioethics: An Introduction, 113-137. New York: Routledge.

  34. Ten Have, Henk. 2016b. “Global practices and bioethics.” En Global Bioethics: AnIntroduction, 184-210. New York: Routledge.

  35. Ten Have, Henk. 2016c. “Global Bioethical Discourse.” En Global Bioethics: An Introduction,211-241. New York: Routledge.

  36. Unesco. 2005a. “Guía No 1. Creación de comités de bioética.” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000139309_spa

  37. Unesco. 2005b. “Declaración Universal sobre Bioética y Derechos Humanos.”http://portal.unesco.org/es/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

  38. Unesco. 2006. “Guía No. 2. Funcionamiento de los comités de bioética: procedimientosy políticas.” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000147392_spa

  39. Unesco. 2008. “La ética de la ciencia y tecnología en la Unesco.” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000160021_spa

  40. Voltaire. 2017a. “Tirano.” Diccionario Filosófico. https://www.e-torredebabel.com/Biblioteca/Voltaire/tirano-Diccionario-Filosofico.htm

  41. Voltaire. 2017b. “Tiranía.” Diccionario Filosófico. https://www.e-torredebabel.com/Biblioteca/Voltaire/tirania-Diccionario-Filosofico.htm




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com