No description available.

Thesis (DPhil)--University of Stellenbosch, 2004. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Human participant research raises a conflict between medical progress as a societal good and the protection of participants as an individual good. Prior to 1960 the discretionary authority for the protection of participants resided in the hands of individual investigators. However, a wave of research atrocities from Tuskegee in 1932 to the Beecher expose in 1966 stimulated a change to a principle based system of regulation. Research Ethics Committees (RECs) and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) were henceforth charged with the responsibility of human participant protection. Since 1966, this system of research review was established internationally and at one institution in South Africa. In 1997, placebo-controlled HIV vertical transmission trials in a number of developing countries including South Africa raised unprecedented controversy in research ethics internationally and nationally. In 2000, the fraudulent breast cancer trials conducted by Dr Bezwoda at Baragwanath Hospital drew international attention to research ethics in South Africa. However, the events that called into question the efficiency of the system of ethical review most poignantly were the recent deaths of volunteers in research at centres of excellence in the United States. It was charged that if there were deficiencies in the research ethics review system in developed countries, these were more likely to be present in developing countries. Around the same time the Interim National Health Research Ethics Committee (INHREC) was established in South Africa to explore and regulate the ethical review system in South Africa. Cognisant of these issues, the current study was undertaken to establish the various structural, procedural and substantive ethical challenges facing justifiable and ethical review of research in South Africa. A combination of conceptualphilosophical reflection and empirical research was employed in this dissertation. The empirical work employed both quantitative and qualitative research methodology. The quantitative survey explored the composition of RECs reviewing clinical trials research in South Africa with an emphasis on committee composition and structure as well as the review process. The qualitative research was conducted using semi-structured interviews of ten REC Chairpersons in South Africa to explore complex substantive issues like informed consent, standards of care and participant remuneration, inter alia. While the review system in South Africa is functioning at a reasonable level, there is wide variation from one REC to the next. RECs are geographically distant and function in isolation without opportunity to communicate and share ideas. Amongst institutional RECs, there is a stark contrast between historically disadvantaged institutions and historically advantaged institutions. REC membership, ten years into democracy remains white male dominated. Community representation is inadequate. Most RECs are dominated by scientists and clinicians. The review process is widely variable with delays in review ranging from ten days to ten weeks. Procedural and bureaucratic demands impact on the ability of REC members to engage in debate on important substantive ethics issues like standards of care, informed consent and participant remuneration. Research ethics training and educational needs vary widely across the country. Serious attention must be paid to the way in which RECs are constituted in South Africa. Restructuring of RECs with a view to improving representation in terms of race, gender and religion must be prioritized. There is a need for community representation and non-scientific membership to be explored. RECs in South Africa need to revisit the question of whether they should be conducting both scientific and ethics review or ethics review alone. The review process requires a paradigm shift in emphasis from adverse event reporting to monitoring, from informed consent forms to a culturally relevant informed consent process. Aparadigm shift is indicated to shift the focus from informed consent to a more comprehensive review framework. Policies regarding standards of care and participant remuneration must be clarified and articulated. Although the role of RECs in human participant protection has been questioned, it is clear that in the vast majority of cases, they are fulfilling an important role. Their function could certainly be enhanced. This is being facilitated by training programs and an electronic newsletter. However, responsibility for human participant protection does not reside in the domain of the REC alone. A collective responsibility shared by researchers, institutions, research ethics committees, sponsors and participants is integral to human participant protection and the generation of new, valid and relevant scientific knowledge. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Navorsing op menslike subjekte gee aanleiding tot ‘n konflik tussen mediese vooruitgang as ‘n voordeel vir die samelewing en die beskerming van deelnemers as iets waarby die individu direkte belang het. Voor 1960 het die diskresionêre gesag vir die beskerming van deelnemers by die individuele navorsers berus. ‘n Golf van navorsingsvergrype, van Tuskegee in 1932 tot die Beecher onthulling in 1966, het egter veranderinge in die rigting van ‘n stelsel van beginsel-gebaseerde regulasie gestimuleer. Navorsingsetiekkomitees (NEKs) en Institusionele Beoordelings- en toesigrade (IBRs) is gevolglik belas met die verantwoordelikheid om toe te sien dat mense wat deelneem, sover moontlik beskerm word. Sedert 1966 is hierdie stelsel van navorsingshersiening en -toesig internasionaal tot stand gebring – ook, aanvanklik, by een instansie in Suid-Afrika. In 1997 het plasebo-beheerde HIV-vertikale oordrag-proewe in ‘n aantal ontwikkelende lande, insluitend Suid-Afrika, tot ongekende kontroversie op die terrein van navorsingsetiek aanleiding gee, internasionaal en nasionaal. In 2000 het die bedrog met borskankerproewe, uitgevoer deur dr Bezwoda by Baragwanath Hospitaal, internasionale aandag op navorsing in Suid-Afrika gevestig. Hierdie gebeure het egter die effektiwiteit van die stelsel van etiese toesig in Suid-Afrika en elders in die wêreld bevraagteken. Die mees kommerwekkende onlangse insident was die dood van navorsingsvrywilligers by sentra van uitmuntendheid in die Verenigde State. Daar is beweer dat as daar tekortkominge in die navorsingsetiektoesigsisteem in ontwikkelende lande is, daar ‘n groter moontlikheid bestaan dat dit ook (en moontlik meer) in ontwikkelende lande voorkom. Ongeveer dieselfde tyd is die Interim Nasionale Gesondheidsnavorsings-etiekkomitee (INGNEK) [Interim National HealthResearch Ethics Committee (INHREC)] in Suid-Afrika gestig om die etiekoorsigstelsel in Suid-Afrika te ondersoek en te reguleer. Met dit in gedagte is die huidige studie onderneem om die verskillende strukturele-, prosedurele- en substantiewe etiese uitdagings wat regverdigbare en etiese oorsig van en toesig oor navorsing in Suid-Afrika in die gesig staar, vas te stel. Daar is van ‘n kombinasie van konseptuele, filosofiese refleksie en empiriese navorsing in hierdie proefskrif gebruik gemaak. Die empiriese werk maak gebruik van sowel kwantitatiewe as kwalitatiewe navorsingsmetodes. Die kwantitatiewe opname bestudeer die samestelling van NEKs wat toesig hou oor kliniese proewe in Suid-Afrika, met die klem op komiteesamestelling, -struktuur en die toesigproses. Die kwalitatiewe navorsing is gedoen met behulp van van semi-gestruktureerde onderhoude van tien NEK-voorsitters in Suid-Afrika om die komplekse substantiewe aspekte, soos onder andere ingeligte toestemming, standaard van versorging en deelnemervergoeding, te ondersoek. Terwyl die etiek-toesigstelsel in Suid-Afriks op ‘n redelike vlak funksioneer, is daar ‘n groot verskil tussen verskillende NEKs. NEKs is geografies verspreid en funksioneer dikwels in isolasie sonder ‘n geleentheid om te kommunikeer en idees te deel. Ten opsigte van die institusionele NEKs bestaan daar ‘n duidelike kontras tussen histories benadeelde instansies en histories bevoordeelde instansies. NEK-lidmaatskap word, tien jaar na demokrasie, steeds gedomineer deur blanke mans. Gemeenskapsverteenwoordiging is onvoldoende. Die meerderheid NEKs word gedomineer deur wetenskaplikes en klinici. Die toesig- en hersieningsprosesse in die verskillende komitees verskil grootliks, met vertragings wat wissel van 10 dae to 10 weke. Prosedurele- en burokratiese vereistes het ‘n impak op die vermoëns van NEK-lede om by debatte oor belangrike substantiewe etiese aangeleenthede betrokke te raak, soos byvoorbeeld die standaard van versorging, ingeligte toestemming en deelnemervergoeding. Opleiding en opvoedkundige behoeftes verskil wyd oor die land.Ernstige aandag moet geskenk word aan die wyse waarop NEKs in Suid-Afrika saamgestel is. Herstrukturering van NEKs met ‘n visie op verbeterde verteenwoordiging in terme van ras, geslag en geloof is ‘n prioriteitsvereiste. Gemeenskapsverteenwoordiging en lidmaatskap van nie-wetenskaplikes moet verder ondersoek word. NEKs in Suid-Afrika moet die vraag of hulle sowel wetenskaplike- as etiektoesig moet uitvoer, of sl slégs etiektoesig, opnuut ondersoek. Die nasiensproses vereis ‘n paradigmaskuif, vanaf ‘n klem op rapportering van gebeurtenisse, na monitering van ingeligte toestemmingsvorms sowel as na ‘n kultureel toepaslike ingeligte toestemmingsproses. ’n Paradigmaskuif is noodsaaklik ten einde die fokus te verskuif vanaf ingeligte toestemming na ‘n meer omvattende toesig- en nasiensraamwerk. Beleid rakende standaard van versorging en deelnemervergoeding moet verduidelik en geartikuleer word. Alhoewel die rol van NEKs in die beskerming van menslike deelnemers aan navorsing bevraagteken word, is dit duidelik dat NEKs in die meerderheid van gevalle wel ‘n belangrike rol vervul. Hul funksie kan natuurlik uitgebrei word. Dit sal gefasiliteer word deur opleidingsprogramme en ‘n elektroniese nuusbrief. Verantwoordelikheid vir die beskerming van mense wat deelneem aan navorsing berus egter nie uitsluitlik by NEKs nie. ‘n Kollektiewe verantwoordelikheid, gedeel deur navorsers, instellings, navorsingsetiekkomitees, borge en deelnemers is ‘n integrale vereiste vir hierdie beskerming sowel as vir die verwerwing van nuwe, geldige en relevante wetenskaplike kennis.

Nombre de « scandales éthiques » ont émaillé l’actualité de la recherche clinique dans les pays du Sud. Face à ce constat, il semble que les principes fondateurs de l’éthique de la recherche biomédicale admis et promulgués par les déclarations et les conférences de consensus internationales ne suffisent pas à protéger au Sud les volontaires participant à des essais cliniques. Nécessitant une adaptation hors du contexte qui a permis leur consolidation, bien que soit donné à voir à chaque nouveau scandale à quel point tout infléchissement des cadres normatifs peut être porteur de dérives inadmissibles, ces principes s’avèrent pour partie remis en question par la situation économique, sanitaire, sociétale des pays du Sud.Le concept de « double standard éthique » décrivant le double écueil auquel l’éthique de la recherche doit faire face, celle-ci s’avère captive d’une forme d’impérialisme des principes et des valeurs ou bien vouée au relativisme moral. La première alternative semble devoir conduire inexorablement à l’arrêt des recherches cliniques dans les pays ne permettant pas l’application stricte des normes qui les encadrent au Nord. La deuxième semble quant à elle mener à l’acceptation d’une réalisation irresponsable,dérégulée, d’essais cliniques aux finalités variables. Face à ce constat, se pose la question de savoir si cette alternative entre absolutisation de la norme et dérégulation peut être dépassée afin de penser une éthique de la recherche au Sud à la fois universelle et singulière.L’exploration de cette question permettra de redéfinir l’éthique comme processus de discussion et de priorisation des principes universels guidé par une compréhension de situations toujours singulières. De ce point de vue, l’adaptation des « conceptions internationalistes » de l’éthique de la recherche à la singularité des contextes apparaîtra non comme une nécessité externe, provoquée par un élément extérieur,mais comme un devoir inhérent à la nature même de la visée éthique. Plus encore, les questions posées par les contextes des pays du Sud à l’éthique de la recherche clinique serviront de révélateur en contribuant à montrer le bien fondé d’une remise encause des interprétations normatives de ses principes, au Nord y compris.7 / Number of “ethical scandals” have punctuated the news of clinical research in developing countries. Given this fact, it seems that the founding principles of the ethics’ biomedical research accepted and promulgated by declarations and international conferences are not enough to protect the volunteers participating in clinical trials in South’s countries. Out of context enabling their strengthening, ethical principles require adaptation. If each new scandal shows how any shift in regulatory frameworks may carry unacceptable abuses, these principles are nevertheless found challenged by South’s economic, state of health and social organizations. The concept of “double standard ethics” describes the twin dangers to which the biomedical research ethics faces. Indeed, biomedical research is captive to a form of imperialism of principles and values, or devoted to moral relativism. The first alternative seems to lead inexorably to the cessation of clinical research in developing countries do not allow the strict application of the standards that govern the North. The second appears to lead to the acceptance of irresponsible and unregulated clinical trials.Given this situation, the question arises whether this alternative may be exceeded in order to assume a research ethics in the South at once universal and unique. The exploration of this issue will redefine ethics as a process of discussion and priorization of universal principles guided by an understanding of situations always singular. From this point of view, the adaptation of “internationalist conceptions” of research ethics to unique contexts appear not as an external necessity but as a duty inherent in the nature of the ethical aim. Moreover, questions asked by the contexts of the South’s countries to the ethics’ clinical research will serve as a contributing developer to show the merits of a challenge to normative interpretations of its principles, including in North’s countries.

O objetivo do estudo foi construir o perfil dos indicados pelos Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa - CEPs - para membros da Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa - CONEP, líderes no sistema de controle da ética em pesquisa no Brasil, quanto à representação de grupos sociais, formação e experiência profissional e experiência e conhecimento em ética na pesquisa. Enquanto informantes-chave, buscou-se conhecer práticas correntes no sistema, e compreensão da regulamentação. Foram aplicados questionários, via correio ou via eletrônica, aos 188 componentes da lista de 2003, obtendo-se 94 respostas válidas, que representaram 80% dos CEPs. O questionário constou de 4 partes - a parte I, de caracterização pessoal, mostrou proporção semelhante de gênero, alta qualificação acadêmica, participação em cursos de pequena duração sobre ética em pesquisa/ bioética, e sensibilidade social. Dos respondentes, 50% tinham cargos de gestão na instituição, 18% deles ligados diretamente à pesquisa, apenas 4% eram representantes de usuários, 90% participaram de pesquisas nos últimos 10 anos, sendo um terço em pesquisa clínica. A parte II correspondeu a uma auto-avaliação de sua participação como membros de CEPs, que mostrou satisfação com a relevância do trabalho, valorização de qualidades como responsabilidade, compromisso, habilidade para trabalho em equipe, sendo que 89% e 85% consideraram-se preparados e competentes respectivamente, apesar de percepção variada da representatividade e compreensão política de sua atuação. Identificaram-se áreas de maior dificuldade na análise de projetos, e encontros, seminários e discussão de casos como formas preferenciais de preparação. A parte III identificou as percepções sobre o funcionamento do sistema de avaliação ética das pesquisas no Brasil, evidenciando a utilização das diretrizes e normas do CNS na análise dos projetos. A mais efetiva participação dos representantes de usuários e o monitoramento das pesquisas são dificuldades freqüentes. Sugestões de melhoria do sistema referiram a abordagem dos projetos da área de ciências humanas, pré-requisitos e preparação para membros de CEPs, integração e melhoria da comunicação entre CEPs e com a Comissão Nacional. A parte IV foram estudos de casos, que evidenciaram convergência de posicionamentos na grande maioria das situações apresentadas. Conclui-se que o reconhecimento da liderança desses indicados nos CEPs institucionais tem reflexos da cultura institucional, mais comumente universidades, e que a indicação de membros reconhecidos pelos seus pares, pode conformar um perfil favorável à atuação na Comissão Nacional. / The objective of the study was to analyze the profile of the persons indicated by the research ethics institutional review boards to become members of the National Commission of Research Ethics (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa/CONEP), considered as leaders in the research ethics evaluation system in Brazil, as to their social group representation, professional experience, experience in research ethics, views about current practices in the system and relations to formal regulations. Questionnaires were sent by mail and electronically to the 188 members of IRBs indicated as candidates in 2003 for nomination as member of CONEP, with 94 answers, representing 80% of the IRB universe at that time. The questionnaire was composed of 4 parts, with part 1 dedicated to personal characterization. The results indicated equal gender proportions, high academic qualification, and frequent participation in short courses about research and bioethics. About 50% occupied institutional positions, 18% directly related to research, and only 4% were representatives of the patients. About 90% had involvement with research in the last 10 years, a third with clinical research. Part II was dedicated to their self-evaluation as members of IRBs, revealing feelings of satisfaction and gratification with their work, and valorization of attributes such as responsibility, compromise, team work capabilities, and 89% and 85% considered themselves prepared and competent for their functions, although with differing perceptions regarding representation and political understandings about their work. Some areas present more difficulties in the analysis of the projects and meetings, seminars and case discussions were mentioned as preferential mechanisms for development. Part III identified perceptions about the functioning of the national research ethics evaluation system, and the utilization of official regulations in project analysis. A more effective participation of the patient representatives and the monitoring of projects are major problems. Areas of necessary investment: how to deal with social sciences research projects, pre-requisites and preparation of IRB members and improved communication of IRBs with each other and the National Commission. Part IV consisted of case studies dedicated to frequent ethical dilemmas in research and the majority had convergent positions as to how to deal with them. The profile of these members as leaders in their IRBs reflects also very strong institutional cultures.

No description available.

O objetivo do estudo foi construir o perfil dos indicados pelos Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa - CEPs - para membros da Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa - CONEP, líderes no sistema de controle da ética em pesquisa no Brasil, quanto à representação de grupos sociais, formação e experiência profissional e experiência e conhecimento em ética na pesquisa. Enquanto informantes-chave, buscou-se conhecer práticas correntes no sistema, e compreensão da regulamentação. Foram aplicados questionários, via correio ou via eletrônica, aos 188 componentes da lista de 2003, obtendo-se 94 respostas válidas, que representaram 80% dos CEPs. O questionário constou de 4 partes - a parte I, de caracterização pessoal, mostrou proporção semelhante de gênero, alta qualificação acadêmica, participação em cursos de pequena duração sobre ética em pesquisa/ bioética, e sensibilidade social. Dos respondentes, 50% tinham cargos de gestão na instituição, 18% deles ligados diretamente à pesquisa, apenas 4% eram representantes de usuários, 90% participaram de pesquisas nos últimos 10 anos, sendo um terço em pesquisa clínica. A parte II correspondeu a uma auto-avaliação de sua participação como membros de CEPs, que mostrou satisfação com a relevância do trabalho, valorização de qualidades como responsabilidade, compromisso, habilidade para trabalho em equipe, sendo que 89% e 85% consideraram-se preparados e competentes respectivamente, apesar de percepção variada da representatividade e compreensão política de sua atuação. Identificaram-se áreas de maior dificuldade na análise de projetos, e encontros, seminários e discussão de casos como formas preferenciais de preparação. A parte III identificou as percepções sobre o funcionamento do sistema de avaliação ética das pesquisas no Brasil, evidenciando a utilização das diretrizes e normas do CNS na análise dos projetos. A mais efetiva participação dos representantes de usuários e o monitoramento das pesquisas são dificuldades freqüentes. Sugestões de melhoria do sistema referiram a abordagem dos projetos da área de ciências humanas, pré-requisitos e preparação para membros de CEPs, integração e melhoria da comunicação entre CEPs e com a Comissão Nacional. A parte IV foram estudos de casos, que evidenciaram convergência de posicionamentos na grande maioria das situações apresentadas. Conclui-se que o reconhecimento da liderança desses indicados nos CEPs institucionais tem reflexos da cultura institucional, mais comumente universidades, e que a indicação de membros reconhecidos pelos seus pares, pode conformar um perfil favorável à atuação na Comissão Nacional. / The objective of the study was to analyze the profile of the persons indicated by the research ethics institutional review boards to become members of the National Commission of Research Ethics (Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa/CONEP), considered as leaders in the research ethics evaluation system in Brazil, as to their social group representation, professional experience, experience in research ethics, views about current practices in the system and relations to formal regulations. Questionnaires were sent by mail and electronically to the 188 members of IRBs indicated as candidates in 2003 for nomination as member of CONEP, with 94 answers, representing 80% of the IRB universe at that time. The questionnaire was composed of 4 parts, with part 1 dedicated to personal characterization. The results indicated equal gender proportions, high academic qualification, and frequent participation in short courses about research and bioethics. About 50% occupied institutional positions, 18% directly related to research, and only 4% were representatives of the patients. About 90% had involvement with research in the last 10 years, a third with clinical research. Part II was dedicated to their self-evaluation as members of IRBs, revealing feelings of satisfaction and gratification with their work, and valorization of attributes such as responsibility, compromise, team work capabilities, and 89% and 85% considered themselves prepared and competent for their functions, although with differing perceptions regarding representation and political understandings about their work. Some areas present more difficulties in the analysis of the projects and meetings, seminars and case discussions were mentioned as preferential mechanisms for development. Part III identified perceptions about the functioning of the national research ethics evaluation system, and the utilization of official regulations in project analysis. A more effective participation of the patient representatives and the monitoring of projects are major problems. Areas of necessary investment: how to deal with social sciences research projects, pre-requisites and preparation of IRB members and improved communication of IRBs with each other and the National Commission. Part IV consisted of case studies dedicated to frequent ethical dilemmas in research and the majority had convergent positions as to how to deal with them. The profile of these members as leaders in their IRBs reflects also very strong institutional cultures.

This is not the first time we hear about aggression to the environment and to man himself. It is, although, from the rising of globalization and a society of risks that such trouble begins to look like reality, specially in developing countries, such as the ones from Latin America. The human being nowadays is going through an uncomfortable feeling caused by his own behavior and it is reflected in the biomedical research area, which has more and more specialized techniques and professionals, who many times ignore the natural vulnerability of the Latin American research and put aside the ethics which should guide their research. Based on this crises of conscience or perception, there is the objective of studying transdisciplinarity in the Ethics in Research Committees as a new possible paradigm for the solution of bioethics controversies in biomedical research with human beings in Latin America. The study focus on Brazil and Argentina Committees. The research is based not only on theoretical considerations on bioethics, human dignity and transdiciplinarity but also on the systemic interpretation of Latin American reality. Therefore, the methodological approach has three perspectives: on its nature the research is basic; on its objectives it is exploitative; and from the object point of view, it is qualitative. Bibliographic and documental research is used considering the theoretical character of the study, having as theoretical reference, the ideas of Edgar Morin, Fridjof Capra and Volnei Garrafa. The question does not lie in being against or in favor of development, but to establish What is the kind of science we want. That is, through the transdisciplinar dialogue of the Ethics Committees from Latin American institutions, to make the scientific community aware that the bioethics principiology specially the human dignity principle is essential in the biomedical research field, or we shall harm not only the individual rights of the researched but also the right to health, which is inherent to society. Even if the practical solution is still far away, it is essential to (re)think the relationship man-science transdisciplinarly, so that a new human conscience is introduced, preoccupied in respecting human dignity and nature as a whole. / Não é de hoje que se houve falar em agressão ao meio ambiente e ao próprio homem, parte deste. É, contudo, a partir do advento da globalização e da sociedade de risco que tal problemática começa a tomar contornos de realidade, especialmente nos países em desenvolvimento, como os da América Latina. O humano, atualmente, passa por uma sensação de mal-estar ocasionada por seus próprios atos e isso se reflete na área das pesquisas biomédicas, que, contando cada vez mais com a técnica e profissionais especializados, os quais, muitas vezes, ignoram a vulnerabilidade natural do pesquisado latino-americano e deixam de lado a ética que deveria nortear as pesquisas. Com base nesta crise de consciência ou percepção, objetiva-se estudar a transdisciplinariedade nos Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa como um novo paradigma possível para a solução de controvérsias bioéticas nas pesquisas biomédicas com seres humanos na América Latina. O estudo tem como foco os comitês do Brasil e Argentina. A pesquisa baseia-se tanto em considerações teóricas sobre bioética, dignidade humana e transdisciplinaridade quanto na interpretação sistêmica da realidade latino-americana. Para tanto, a abordagem metodológica se dá sob três ângulos: quanto à natureza a pesquisa é básica; relativamente aos objetivos, é exploratória; e do ponto de vista do objeto, qualitativa. Utiliza-se pesquisa bibliográfica e documental considerando o caráter teórico do estudo, tendo-se como referencial teórico, principalmente, as idéias de Edgar Morin e Fridjof Capra. A questão não repousa em estar contra ou a favor do desenvolvimento, mas sim, estabelecer qual é o tipo de ciência que se pretende. Ou seja, através do diálogo transdisciplinar dos Comitês de Ética das instituições latino-americanas, conscientizar a comunidade científica de que a principiologia bioética em especial o princípio da dignidade humana é fundamental no campo das pesquisas biomédicas, sob pena de ferir-se não só o direito individual do pesquisado, como também, o direito à saúde, inerente a toda coletividade. Mesmo que a solução prática ainda esteja distante, é indispensável (re)pensar a relação homem-ciência transdisciplinarmente, a fim de que seja introduzida uma nova consciência no humano, preocupada em respeitar a dignidade humana e a natureza como um todo.

A tendência de globalização dos ensaios clínicos, observada nos últimos anos, trouxe à tona questões antes não discutidas como a continuidade do tratamento com os medicamentos em investigação, após a conclusão da pesquisa. A inclusão de países em desenvolvimento nesses estudos traz consigo a preocupação com a vulnerabilidade dos participantes da pesquisa. No Brasil, há cerca de cinco anos, os Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa, CEP, e, particularmente, a Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa, CONEP, passaram a solicitar a manutenção do fornecimento do(s) medicamento(s) do estudo após sua finalização. Embora baseada nos principais documentos éticos que norteiam a pesquisa clínica, essa solicitação apresenta dificuldades práticas para implantação, principalmente no caso de doenças crônicas. O objetivo deste trabalho foi identificar as questões envolvidas na continuidade do fornecimento de medicamentos após a conclusão de ensaio clínico e analisar a perspectiva de atores que compõem o cenário da pesquisa clínica nacional. Questionários e respectivos Termos de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecidos, TCLE, foram enviados por correioeletrônico, entre outubro de 2009 e janeiro de 2010, a membros de CEPs (todos os CEPs credenciados pela CONEP naquela data), pesquisadores (em duas áreas terapêuticas, HIV/AIDS e Diabetes mellitus) e patrocinadores. Aos pesquisadores foi solicitado que aplicassem o questionário a seus pacientes de pesquisa. A taxa de resposta dos CEPs foi de 20,7% (124 responderam, de 599 questionários enviados), 20% para os pesquisadores (58 de 290) e 45,3% para os patrocinadores (24 de 53). Cinquenta e quatro pacientes convidados por seus médicos responderam. Com relação à informação contida no TCLE, o item menos informado é relativo a como obter o medicamento após o estudo, para todos os grupos pesquisados. Com relação à motivação dos pacientes ao participar de uma pesquisa, 96,2% dos pacientes responderam como \"muito importante\", na decisão, a busca de melhores cuidados médicos e atenção à própria saúde, e 94,2% o fato de colaborar para o desenvolvimento da ciência (altruísmo). Entretanto, os demais grupos entrevistados não pensam da mesma forma: para eles, a maior motivação dos pacientes, ao participar de pesquisas clínicas, é a busca de melhores cuidados médicos e atenção à sua saúde, seguido da busca pelo acesso a alternativas de tratamento para sua doença. Ao serem perguntados sobre quem deveria receber o medicamento em investigação após o estudo, os pacientes responderam que todas as pessoas deveriam receber o medicamento após o estudo (60,4%); entre os pesquisadores, a maior parte (43,1%) respondeu que o medicamento deveria ser fornecido às pessoas participantes do estudo e 39,7% deles responderam que o medicamento deveria ser fornecido às pessoas que se beneficiariam do medicamento em estudo. Já os representantes de CEP concordaram com os pacientes que todas as pessoas deveriam receber o medicamento, mas em proporção bem menor (35,3%). Os patrocinadores opinaram que o medicamento do estudo deveria ser fornecido aos participantes da pesquisa que dele se beneficiariam (50%). Houve consenso entre os grupos em que, havendo a continuidade do tratamento, este deveria ser fornecido pelo patrocinador e de forma gratuita. Ao responder a questão relativa a quanto tempo deveria o medicamento ser fornecido, pesquisadores e patrocinadores consideraram que o medicamento deveria ser fornecido até estar disponível na rede pública, enquanto que os membros de CEP, opinaram que isso deveria acontecer durante o período que o paciente fosse beneficiado. Os pacientes responderam que o benefício deveria ser mantido pela vida toda. Devido às várias limitações deste estudo (representatividade da amostra, população restrita a usuários da Internet), seus resultados podem não ser generalizados, mas podem contribuir para a discussão do tema, ao analisar os pontos de vista de vários atores do cenário da pesquisa clínica nacional. / The recent trend of globalization of clinical trials, observed in the last years, raised some non-previously discussed issues, such as the continuity of treatment after the conclusion of the study. The inclusion of developing countries in these trials brings together the concern with the participants\' vulnerability. In Brazil, about 5 years ago, the Ethics Committees (EC) and the National Commission of Ethics in Research (so called CONEP) started requiring the access to study medication after the trial ends. Even being based on the main documents related to ethics and research, some practical issues make this requirement difficult to implement, mainly in the arena of chronic diseases. The goal of this research was to identify the questions related to continuing the supply of the investigational medicine and analyze the perspective of all stakeholders involved in clinical research. Questionnaires and informed consents were sent through e-mail, between Oct 2009 and Jan 2010, to EC members (all ECs mentioned at CONEP site at that moment), clinical investigators (in two therapeutical areas, HIV/AIDS and Diabetes) and sponsors. We also asked the clinical investigators to submit the questionnaire (in paper) to their patients who already participated in clinical research. The response rate in each group was: 20.7% in EC members\' group (599 questionnaires sent, 124 replied), 20% in clinical investigators\' group (58 of 290) and 45.3% in sponsors\' group (24 of 53). Fifty four patients answered the questionnaire through their doctors. Regarding to the information displaced in the informed consent, the item less informed, according to all groups, was related to how to obtain the study medication after the conclusion of the trial. Concerning the motivation of patients which made them accept to participate in a clinical trial, 96.2% of patients answered as \"very important\" to obtain better health care and attention and 94.2% mentioned also as \"very important\" the possibility to collaborate with the progress of the science (altruism). However, among the other groups, the responses were different: for them, the major motivation for the patients would be to have access to better health care and attention (similar to patients) and search for access to treatment alternatives for their diseases. When asked to whom should be given the study medication after the trial, the patients answered that all patients should receive it (60.4%); for the clinical investigators, 43.1% believe that the medication should be given to the participants of the study and 39.7% to the subjects who participated and benefited from the study treatment. The EC members agreed (but to a lesser degree, 35.3%) with the patients that all individuals with the disease should receive the medication after the trial. For 50% of the sponsors, the study medication should be assured to the participants who had benefit from the treatment. In the case of need of access extension after the trial, a consensus could be observed among all groups, concerning to whom should provide the medication (the sponsor) and how (completely free). One question addressed the issue of how long the treatment should be assured after the trial: clinical investigators and sponsors replied that the medication should be kept until be available in the public health sector; the EC members thought it should be furnished while the patient keeps the benefit. The patients answered that the benefit should be assured for all life. Due to the several limitations of this research (such as the sample representativeness, population restrict to internet users), their results can\'t be generalized; however, the data can contribute to the discussion of this very complex topic through analyzing the views of the several stakeholders of the scenario of clinical research in Brazil.

A tendência de globalização dos ensaios clínicos, observada nos últimos anos, trouxe à tona questões antes não discutidas como a continuidade do tratamento com os medicamentos em investigação, após a conclusão da pesquisa. A inclusão de países em desenvolvimento nesses estudos traz consigo a preocupação com a vulnerabilidade dos participantes da pesquisa. No Brasil, há cerca de cinco anos, os Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa, CEP, e, particularmente, a Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa, CONEP, passaram a solicitar a manutenção do fornecimento do(s) medicamento(s) do estudo após sua finalização. Embora baseada nos principais documentos éticos que norteiam a pesquisa clínica, essa solicitação apresenta dificuldades práticas para implantação, principalmente no caso de doenças crônicas. O objetivo deste trabalho foi identificar as questões envolvidas na continuidade do fornecimento de medicamentos após a conclusão de ensaio clínico e analisar a perspectiva de atores que compõem o cenário da pesquisa clínica nacional. Questionários e respectivos Termos de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecidos, TCLE, foram enviados por correioeletrônico, entre outubro de 2009 e janeiro de 2010, a membros de CEPs (todos os CEPs credenciados pela CONEP naquela data), pesquisadores (em duas áreas terapêuticas, HIV/AIDS e Diabetes mellitus) e patrocinadores. Aos pesquisadores foi solicitado que aplicassem o questionário a seus pacientes de pesquisa. A taxa de resposta dos CEPs foi de 20,7% (124 responderam, de 599 questionários enviados), 20% para os pesquisadores (58 de 290) e 45,3% para os patrocinadores (24 de 53). Cinquenta e quatro pacientes convidados por seus médicos responderam. Com relação à informação contida no TCLE, o item menos informado é relativo a como obter o medicamento após o estudo, para todos os grupos pesquisados. Com relação à motivação dos pacientes ao participar de uma pesquisa, 96,2% dos pacientes responderam como \"muito importante\", na decisão, a busca de melhores cuidados médicos e atenção à própria saúde, e 94,2% o fato de colaborar para o desenvolvimento da ciência (altruísmo). Entretanto, os demais grupos entrevistados não pensam da mesma forma: para eles, a maior motivação dos pacientes, ao participar de pesquisas clínicas, é a busca de melhores cuidados médicos e atenção à sua saúde, seguido da busca pelo acesso a alternativas de tratamento para sua doença. Ao serem perguntados sobre quem deveria receber o medicamento em investigação após o estudo, os pacientes responderam que todas as pessoas deveriam receber o medicamento após o estudo (60,4%); entre os pesquisadores, a maior parte (43,1%) respondeu que o medicamento deveria ser fornecido às pessoas participantes do estudo e 39,7% deles responderam que o medicamento deveria ser fornecido às pessoas que se beneficiariam do medicamento em estudo. Já os representantes de CEP concordaram com os pacientes que todas as pessoas deveriam receber o medicamento, mas em proporção bem menor (35,3%). Os patrocinadores opinaram que o medicamento do estudo deveria ser fornecido aos participantes da pesquisa que dele se beneficiariam (50%). Houve consenso entre os grupos em que, havendo a continuidade do tratamento, este deveria ser fornecido pelo patrocinador e de forma gratuita. Ao responder a questão relativa a quanto tempo deveria o medicamento ser fornecido, pesquisadores e patrocinadores consideraram que o medicamento deveria ser fornecido até estar disponível na rede pública, enquanto que os membros de CEP, opinaram que isso deveria acontecer durante o período que o paciente fosse beneficiado. Os pacientes responderam que o benefício deveria ser mantido pela vida toda. Devido às várias limitações deste estudo (representatividade da amostra, população restrita a usuários da Internet), seus resultados podem não ser generalizados, mas podem contribuir para a discussão do tema, ao analisar os pontos de vista de vários atores do cenário da pesquisa clínica nacional. / The recent trend of globalization of clinical trials, observed in the last years, raised some non-previously discussed issues, such as the continuity of treatment after the conclusion of the study. The inclusion of developing countries in these trials brings together the concern with the participants\' vulnerability. In Brazil, about 5 years ago, the Ethics Committees (EC) and the National Commission of Ethics in Research (so called CONEP) started requiring the access to study medication after the trial ends. Even being based on the main documents related to ethics and research, some practical issues make this requirement difficult to implement, mainly in the arena of chronic diseases. The goal of this research was to identify the questions related to continuing the supply of the investigational medicine and analyze the perspective of all stakeholders involved in clinical research. Questionnaires and informed consents were sent through e-mail, between Oct 2009 and Jan 2010, to EC members (all ECs mentioned at CONEP site at that moment), clinical investigators (in two therapeutical areas, HIV/AIDS and Diabetes) and sponsors. We also asked the clinical investigators to submit the questionnaire (in paper) to their patients who already participated in clinical research. The response rate in each group was: 20.7% in EC members\' group (599 questionnaires sent, 124 replied), 20% in clinical investigators\' group (58 of 290) and 45.3% in sponsors\' group (24 of 53). Fifty four patients answered the questionnaire through their doctors. Regarding to the information displaced in the informed consent, the item less informed, according to all groups, was related to how to obtain the study medication after the conclusion of the trial. Concerning the motivation of patients which made them accept to participate in a clinical trial, 96.2% of patients answered as \"very important\" to obtain better health care and attention and 94.2% mentioned also as \"very important\" the possibility to collaborate with the progress of the science (altruism). However, among the other groups, the responses were different: for them, the major motivation for the patients would be to have access to better health care and attention (similar to patients) and search for access to treatment alternatives for their diseases. When asked to whom should be given the study medication after the trial, the patients answered that all patients should receive it (60.4%); for the clinical investigators, 43.1% believe that the medication should be given to the participants of the study and 39.7% to the subjects who participated and benefited from the study treatment. The EC members agreed (but to a lesser degree, 35.3%) with the patients that all individuals with the disease should receive the medication after the trial. For 50% of the sponsors, the study medication should be assured to the participants who had benefit from the treatment. In the case of need of access extension after the trial, a consensus could be observed among all groups, concerning to whom should provide the medication (the sponsor) and how (completely free). One question addressed the issue of how long the treatment should be assured after the trial: clinical investigators and sponsors replied that the medication should be kept until be available in the public health sector; the EC members thought it should be furnished while the patient keeps the benefit. The patients answered that the benefit should be assured for all life. Due to the several limitations of this research (such as the sample representativeness, population restrict to internet users), their results can\'t be generalized; however, the data can contribute to the discussion of this very complex topic through analyzing the views of the several stakeholders of the scenario of clinical research in Brazil.

Objetivo: Identificar as questões antiéticas, aéticas e iatrogênicas dos Profissionais da Enfermagem através da análise qualitativa dos processos ético-profissionais abertos junto ao COREN SP no período de 1º de janeiro de 2001 a 31 de dezembro de 2004. Quantificar o número de processos ético-profissionais abertos; identificar o perfil dos profissionais denunciados; relacionar as infrações éticas com os artigos elencados no Código de Ética dos Profissionais de Enfermagem; analisar os processos ético-profissionais, sistematizando os resultados de modo a obter os principais tipos de denúncia, seus locais de ocorrência e a identificação dos tipos de denunciantes; discutir a iatrogenia como fator predominante da infração ética. Método: Trata-se de uma pesquisa exploratória, documental e de corte qualitativo baseada na coleta de dados contidos nos autos dos processos ético-profissionais, no âmbito do COREN SP, no período de 1º de janeiro de 2001 a 31 de dezembro de 2004, por meio da utilização de um questionário, o questionário se encontra no Anexo 1. Do material coletado foram excluídos os processos ético-profissionais cujos dados não permitiram o preenchimento completo do questionário. Os dados obtidos foram submetidos à análise estatística. Resultados e Conclusões: Foram analisados 189 (cento e oitenta e nove) processos ético-profissionais no período de 1º de janeiro de 2001 até 31 de dezembro de 2004, período de 4 (quatro) anos. A coleta desses dados foi feita no Conselho Regional de Enfermagem de São Paulo - COREN SP, nos anos de 2010 e 2011. A maioria das ocorrências chega ao CORENSP por meio de denuncia feita pelas CEEs, com relação à distribuição do número de descritores agrupados em tipos de infrações éticas envolvidos na denúncia, dos Processos Ético- Profissionais analisados houve uma predominância da iatrogenia 38,83% dentre os descritores dos processos analisados. As denúncias são feitas em sua grande maioria dentro de hospitais públicos, as denúncias entre a cidade de São Paulo e cidades do interior do estado de São Paulo de acordo com a pessoa jurídica (CEE) como parte denunciante indicam um maior número de denúncias feitas pelas Comissões de Ética de Enfermagem - CEEs do interior do estado de São Paulo. As denúncias de pessoas físicas ocorreram no interior em 63,64% do estado de São Paulo e 36,36% na capital, indicando, portanto um maior número de denúncias feito por pessoa física no interior. Houve uma maior caracterização da parte denunciada como pessoa física na capital do que no interior do estado de São Paulo. As pessoas que denunciam 52% são pacientes, seguidos por acompanhantes 32%. A maioria das pessoas físicas como parte denunciada foram os auxiliares de enfermagem em 55,56%, enquanto enfermeiros foram denunciados 33,9%. Com relação à distribuição dos artigos infringidos do Código de Ética dos Profissionais de Enfermagem, segundo o número e a porcentagem em ordem decrescente o artigo mais infringido, artigo 16, aconteceu em 11,13%. Outras importantes variáveis foram estudadas e serão analisadas em trabalhos futuros / Objective: Identify the unethical, non-ethical and iatrogenic issues of the Nursing staff through qualitative analysis of the ethical legal proceedings taken at COREN SP during the period of January 1st 2001 to December 31st 2004. Quantify the number of ethical processes taken; identify the profile of the professionals accused; relate the ethical infractions with articles listed in the Code of Ethics of Professional Nursing; analyze the ethical and professional proceedings, systematizing the results in order to obtain the main types of complaint, their places of occurrence and identify the types of informers; discuss iatrogeny as a predominant factor of ethical offence. Method: This was an exploratory, documentary and qualitative research based on the collection of data in the record of proceedings within the ethical processes under COREN SP during the period January 1st 2001 to December 31st 2004, by use of a questionnaire, which is in Annex 1. Ethical processes whose data did not allow the complete filling out of the questionnaire were excluded. The data were subjected to statistical analysis. Results and Conclusions: One hundred and eighty-nine (189) ethical proceedings from the period of January 1st 2001 to December 31st 2004 were analyzed, a period of four (4) years. The collection was taken at the Regional Council of Nursing São Paulo - COREN SP, within the years 2010 and 2011. Most occurrences reach CORENSP through complaints made by the Nursing Ethics Committees (NEC). With respect to the distribution of the number of descriptors grouped into types of ethical violations involved in the complaint, there was a prevalence of 38.83% of iatrogenic descriptors in the analyzed processes. Complaints are mostly made within public hospitals. The complaints from the city of São Paulo and other cities in the state, in accordance with the legal person (NEC) indicate a greater number of complaints made by Ethics Committees in Nursing - in the state of São Paulo, not in the capital. Reports from individuals occurred in 63.64% within the state of São Paulo, while in the capital it were 36.36%, thus indicating a greater number of complaints made by individuals within the state of São Paulo. There was a greater characterization of the individual as reported in the capital than in the state of São Paulo. People who complain are 52% patients, followed by 32% companions. Most individuals reported were nursing assistants: 55.56%, while nurses were reported by 33.9%. The most violated article in the Code of Ethics of Professional Nursing was Article 16, which means 11.13%. Other important variables were studied and will be analyzed in a future research