Indian Journal of Medical Ethics

Health systems research and the Gadchiroli debate: a plea for universal and equitable ethics

COMMENTS

Health systems research and the Gadchiroli debate: a plea for universal and equitable ethics

Prashanth NS, Upendra Bhojani, Werner Soors

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2011.016


We were pleased to read, in the January-March 2010 issue of this journal, Abhay Bang’s response to criticism of the Gadchiroli trial on ethical grounds (1). While it is not within the ambit of this article to comment on the Gadchiroli trial principal investigator’s clarifications, we would like to extend the debate on standards of care that he discusses to standards of ethics, with particular reference to health systems research.

Health systems research (HSR) can be distinguished from conventional analytical research by its comprehensive approach that recognises and considers multiple non-linear interrelations among components of health systems. HSR can include the study of any constituent of a health system, but never in isolation and always in a unique context. HSR is focused on solving practical problems, with the aim of improving the system (2). The Gadchiroli trial shares several characteristics of health systems research: it tried to find a solution for “a hopeless case” (newborn mortality) in a specific context (Gadchiroli district, rural Maharashtra, 1993), and successfully “strived to influence policy at the state and national levels”, as explained by Bang in his response (1). Within all the limitations of time and context, the Gadchiroli trial’s design – non-randomised, but controlled – was even innovative (3). So far, so good.

Yet in 2007, Marcia Angell – renowned North American medical scholar with an impressive curriculum vitae – severely criticised the Gadchiroli trial as unethical (4), which apparently surprised external observers (3) and the principal investigator (1) alike. The latter challenged the validity of Angell’s central reproof: not having offered state-of-the-art standards of care to the trial’s “control” population. In the last sentence of his response, the principal investigator questioned the ethics of the critic (1). In this comment, we want to depersonalise and generalise this matter, by questioning the nature and application of medical research ethics today. We argue that current medical research standards are too limited in scope, and are unethical in being inequitably applied.

According to the World Health Organization, ethics provides a framework without prescribing a specific set of rules (5). Indeed, few ethical guidance documents are legally binding (6) and a range of parallel national and international guidelines are in circulation (7), with different interpretations leading to lively discussions (8,9). It is useful to recall the origin and scope of these guidelines. The Declaration of Helsinki can be considered to be the predominant guidance. Authored by the World Medical Association, its first version in 1964 (10) was an elaboration on the principles of the 1947 Nuremberg Code (11), which itself was a legitimate (yet late) response to inadmissible experiments by doctors on human subjects under the Nazi regime. The Declaration of Helsinki has undergone six revisions and two clarifications between 1964 and 2008. Most controversial has been the inclusion of the ethical universalism principle through the explicit insistence on delivery of state-of-the-art care in control groups – first in the 1996 revision (12), then reformulated in the 2000 revision (13) and sole subject of the 2002 clarification (14). This led to a longstanding debate between advocates of universalism and relativism (15). In developing countries in particular, the Declaration of Helsinki has been accused of being biased by a western worldview. However pertinent this statement might be, we argue that it detracts from the fact that it refers to a specific paradigm: one that presumes the superiority of biomedical logic in health, and consequently glorifies randomised control trials and systematic reviews. It is the narrow adherence to a particular analytical method that makes current ethical guidelines inappropriate for health systems research, in developing and developed countries. A conventional analytical approach to research can be effective in biomedical research – with a focus on few variables, and essentially linear interactions. This is not necessarily so in health systems research that focuses on essentially non-linear interactions and necessarily uses a range of research methods (2). Accordingly, the scope of medical research ethics rooted in one particular scientific method cannot meet the needs of health systems research. The limitations of the conventional analytical approach are wittily (disrespectfully, some have argued) illustrated by Smith and Pell in their mock systematic review of parachute use: those “who insist that all interventions need to be validated by a randomised controlled trial need to come down to earth with a bump”. (16)

In developing countries, a key challenge of applying universal ethical standards is to take into consideration contextual issues on moral grounds without resorting to ethical relativism (17). This consideration is too often lacking, as the debate on the Gadchiroli trial illustrates (1, 4). At the same time, the application of these standards in developed countries is far from perfect. Today – 63 years after the Nuremberg Code was formulated to avert atrocities in the name of science – protection of humans in medical research is still an unfulfilled need, as recent disclosures on medical experiments on detainees in US custody illustrate (18). Both the lack of consideration of context and ongoing human subject experimentation can be termed inequitable, unfair and unethical. To achieve the universal ethical standards that this world needs, we might want to go further back than Nuremberg and look for inspiration from Aristotle’s concept of complementary general and particular justice (19). Such balance – as proposed more than 2,000 years ago – is needed if we want ethics to be both universal and equitable.

References

  1. Bang A. Was the Gadchiroli trial ethical? Response from the principal investigator. Indian J Med Ethics[Internet]. 2010 Jan-Mar [cited 2010 June 8]; 7(1):12-4. Available from: http://www.ijme.in/181co12.html
  2. Grodos D, Mercenier P. Health systems research: a clearer methodology for more effective action. In: Van Lerberghe W, Kegels G, De Brouwere V, editors. Studies in Health Services Organisation & Policy [Internet]. Antwerp: ITGPress;2000 [cited 2010 Nov 30]. Available from: http://www.itg.be/itg/GeneralSite/generalpage.asp?WPID=391&l=e
  3. Costello A. Debating how to do ethical research in developing countries. Lancet. 2007 Sep 22;370(9592): 1025-36.
  4. Angell M. The SEARCH neonatal sepsis study: was it ethical? In: Lavery J, Grady C, Wahl E, Emanuel E, editors. Ethical issues in international biomedical research: a casebook. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. p.114-5.
  5. World Health Organization. Research ethics committees: basic concepts for capacity-building [Internet].Geneva: WHO Department of Ethics, Equity, Trade and Human Rights;2009[cited 2010 Jun 8]. Available from: http://www.who.int/eth/Ethics_basic_concepts_ENG.pdf
  6. Nuffield Council on Bioethics.The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries: a follow-up discussion paper[Internet]. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics;2005[cited 2010 Jun 8]. Available from: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/developingcountries/publication_169.html
  7. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries [Internet]. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics;2002 [cited 2010 Jun 8]. Available from: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/developingcountries/publication_309.html
  8. Lie R, Emanuel E, Grady C, Wendler D. The standard of care debate: the Declaration of Helsinki versus the international consensus opinion J Med Ethics [Internet]. 2004 Apr [cited 2010 Jun 8];30(2):190-3. Available from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/2/190.full.pdf
  9. Schuklenk U. The standard of care debate: against the myth of an “international consensus opinion”. J Med Ethics [Internet]. 2004 Apr [cited 2010 Jun 8];30(2):194-7. Available from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/2/194.full.pdf
  10. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsink [Internet]. Helsinki: 18th World Medical Assembly;1964 Jun [cited 2010 Jun 8]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1816102/pdf/brmedj02559%2D0071.pdf
  11. Nuremberg Military Tribunals. Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Vol. II: “The medical case”, “The Milch case” [Internet]. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1949 [cited 2010 Jun 8]. Available from: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-II.pdf
  12. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects [Internet]. Somerset West, RSA: 48th World Medical Association General Assembly; 1996 Oct[cited 2010 Jun 8]. Available from: http://www.jcto.co.uk/Documents/Training/Declaration_of_Helsinki_1996_version.pdf
  13. World Medical Association.World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. [Internet] Edinburgh, Scotland: 52th World Medical Association General Assembly; 2000 Oct. [cited 2010 Jun 8] Available from: http://www.tsghirb.ndmctsgh.edu.tw/doc/21DeclarationOfHelsinki.pdf
  14. World Medical Association.World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects [Internet]. Washington, DC: 54th World Medical Association General Assembly; 2002 Oct.[cited 2010 Jun 8]. Available from: http://www.baskent.edu.tr/tip/helsinkiing.pdf
  15. Tangwa G. Between universalism and relativism: a conceptual exploration of problems in formulating and applying international biomedical ethical guidelines. J Med Ethics [Internet]. 2004 Feb [cited 2010 Jun 8];30(1):63-7. Available from: http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/1/63.full.pdf
  16. Smith G, Pell J. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ [Internet]. 2003 Dec 20 [cited 2010 Jun 8];327(7429):1459-61. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/327/7429/1459
  17. Benatar S. Reflections and recommendations on research ethics in developing countries. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1131-41.
  18. Physicians for Human Rights. Experiments in torture: evidence on human subject research and experimentation in the “enhanced” interrogation program [Internet]. Cambridge, MA: Physicians for Human Rights;2010 Jun [cited 2010 Jun 8]. Available from: http://phrtorturepapers.org/
  19. Aristotle. Nicomachean ethics. Ross WD, translator [Internet].Adelaide: University of Adelaide Library;2006 [cited 2010 Jun 8]. Available from: http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/nicomachean/book5.html