Mooted changes to the Declaration on the agenda of the World Medical Association have sparked a vigorous debate on international research issues. The medical, research and ethics communities in Australia need to participate more broadly in this debate.
The Nuremberg Code, which was formulated to prevent a recurrence of the horrific medical experiments carried out on humans during World War II, is unwavering in its commitment to the primacy of the human subject. It states that any person who is a research participant "should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice" and that "(t)he experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature."1
- 1.
- The Nuremberg Code. From: Trials of war criminals before theNuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10.Nuremberg, Oct 1946-Apr 1949. Washington, DC: US GovernmentPrinting Office, 1949.
- 2.
- World Medical Association. Recommendations guiding physiciansin biomedical research involving human subjects. As adopted by the18th World Medical Assembly, Helsinki, June 1964 (the "Declarationof Helsinki").
- 3.
- Katz J. The consent principle in the Nuremberg Code: itssignificance then and now. In: Annas G, Grodin M. The Nazi doctors andthe Nuremberg Code: human rights in human experimentation. New York:Oxford University Press, 1992: 227-239.
- 4.
- Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences, incollaboration with the World Health Organization. Internationalethical guidelines for biomedical research involving humansubjects. Geneva: CIOMS, WHO, 1993.
- 5.
- French H. AIDS research in Africa: juggling risks and hopes. NewYork Times October 9, 1997: A1, A14.
- 6.
- Allotey P. Clinical trials in developing countries: bringingpeople into the debate. Monash Bioethics Review 1999; 18:18-23.
- 7.
- Levine R. The need to revise the Declaration of Helsinki. N Engl JMed 1999; 341: 531-534.
- 8.
- Brennan T. Proposed revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki --will they weaken the ethical principles underlying human research?N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 527-531.
- 9.
- British Medical Association. BMA response to the proposedrevision of the WMA Declaration of Helsinki. London: BMA, August1999.
- 10.
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted and proclaimed bythe United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. Geneva:Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
- 11.
- Otto D. Rethinking the "universality" of human rights law.Columbia Human Rights Law Rev 1997; 29: 1-46.
- 12.
- Macklin R. Justice in international research. In: Kahn J,Mastroianni A, Sugarman J, editors. Beyond consent: seeking justicein international research. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998:131-146.
- 13.
- Varmus H, Satcher D. Ethical complexities of conducting researchin developing countries. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1003-1005.
- 14.
- Bayer R. The debate over maternal-fetal HIV transmissionprevention trials in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean: racistexploitation or exploitation of racism? Am J Public Health1998; 88: 567-570.
- 15.
- Proceedings of a symposium. The Declaration of Helsinki:a symposium to review current proposals for change. VictorianInstitute of Forensic Medicine; 1999 Aug 30; Monash University,Melbourne, VIC.
- 16.
- Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. Ethicalconsiderations in HIV preventive vaccine research: UNAIDS guidancedocument. Geneva: UNAIDS, February 2000.
- 17.
- Harris A. Foreword: the jurisprudence of reconstruction.California Law Rev 1994; 82: 741-785.