|
|
Abstract
Ethical misrecognition: reframing community perspectives and debates on clinical trial conduct
K. Peterson1, M. Folayan2
Background: What counts as “ethical” in clinical practice? “Ethics” is usually rationalized as “ethical” via two mechanisms: the informed consent and institutional review board (IRB) approval. The concept, ethical misrecognition, is used to show that such institutionalized mechanisms can actually erase and obscure ethical practice rather than insure ethical integrity in clinical research.
Methods: To demonstrate, a content analysis was conducted on a Nigerian national dialogue (via an international listserv) pertaining to the tenofovir (TDF) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) trial between August 2004- March 2005. Primary ethical disputes among both scientists and lay experts were documented, which included community preparedness and advisory mechanisms, care of trial subjects, and study design and scientific rationales.
Results: 1) the simple existence of an IRB or informed consent does not translate into a uniform agreement of ethical practice, and
2) trial designs and the gathering of data situated within unequal relationships give rise to unethical practices.
Conclusions: It is proposed that more rigorous independent oversight and transparent review at every stage of the research process will help to offset, but not eliminate, unequal relations in clinical research. As such, it will additionally help to facilitate practices that can be agreed upon as ethical by all actors concerned with research ethics.
AIDS 2008 - XVII International AIDS Conference
Abstract no.
MOPE1094
Suggested Citation
"K.Peterson, et al.
Ethical misrecognition: reframing community perspectives and debates on clinical trial conduct.
:
AIDS 2008 - XVII International AIDS Conference:
Abstract no.
MOPE1094"
|
|
|