What are the effects of the fifth revision of the Declaration of Helsinki? Fair partnerships support ethical research Gains and losses for rights of consumer and research participants Research will be impeded Some clauses will hinder development of new drugs and vaccines
- 15 December 2001
- Vol. 323 (7326) , 1417-1423
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7326.1417
Abstract
# What are the effects of the fifth revision of the Declaration of Helsinki? {#article-title-2} The World Medical Association's fifth revision of the Declaration of Helsinki strives to strike a balance between ensuring high ethical standards and retaining sufficient sensitivity to local circumstances, especially in developing world research, to avoid thwarting research with bureaucracy. Has the balance been achieved? We asked researchers working in the developing world, the developed world, and the pharmaceutical industry, as well as a patient representative, to comment. # Fair partnerships support ethical research {#article-title-3} The World Medical Association describes the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles to guide physicians and other participants in medical research involving human subjects, including identifiable human tissue or data.1 When producing the fifth revision, representatives of the 71 affiliated medical associations were especially concerned that research in developing settings—and particularly clinical trials—meet the highest ethical standards of conduct. However, despite the increasingly inclusive aspirations of the revised declaration, some of the absolute and exclusionary language could unintentionally endanger research in developing countries. One of the fundamental changes to the declaration is clause 29. This states that new treatments should be tested against best current treatment rather than placebo (box). The clause was formulated in response to sustained criticism of field trials in developing countries that tested short course therapies aimed at preventing vertical transmission of HIV using placebo controls.2–4 It implies that local circumstances—sociopolitical, financial, infrastructural, cultural—can never justify failure to use the best known drugs or technologies in the control arm. Its intention is clear: #### Clause 29 of the Declaration of Helsinki The benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new method should be tested against those of the best current prophylactic, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods. This does not exclude the use of placebo, or no treatment, in studies where no proven prophylactic, diagnostic or therapeutic method exists. Correspondence to: L J HirschKeywords
This publication has 27 references indexed in Scilit:
- Leukaemia and aplastic anaemia in patients irradiated for ankylosing spondylitisJournal of Radiological Protection, 2007
- Comparison of Two Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors, Tirofiban and Abciximab, for the Prevention of Ischemic Events with Percutaneous Coronary RevascularizationNew England Journal of Medicine, 2001
- Abortion and breast cancer: a case-control record linkage studyJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2001
- World Medical Association Declaration of HelsinkiJAMA, 2000
- Proposed Revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki — Will They Weaken the Ethical Principles Underlying Human Research?New England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- Who dies from what? Determining cause of death in South Africa's rural north‐eastTropical Medicine & International Health, 1999
- Selecting subjects for participation in clinical research: one sphere of justice.Journal of Medical Ethics, 1999
- Ethical Complexities of Conducting Research in Developing CountriesNew England Journal of Medicine, 1997
- Strident, but essential: the voices of people with aidsBMJ, 1997
- How Much Influence Do Various Members Have within Research Ethics Committees?Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 1994