Treating African Children as Human Guinea Pigs?

If this story is true, it is not the first time that Africans have been used in unethical experiments that would never be attempted in developed nations. Pfizer is being sued by Nigeria for killing and disabling children whilst testing a drug for the treatment of meningitis. I will not make any judgment here whether the charges are valid, and Pfizer denies all wrongdoing. But, the story, if true, is cause for great concern. Here is the heart of the controversy:
Drug companies have treated the lives of Africans with lesser concern than Americans before, for example, in AIDS testing on infected pregnant women that used a placebo when testing a new drug rather than an efficacious medication that was already known to help prevent transmission to babies. Such unethical human experiments are a denial of the intrinsic equal worth and value of each human life.The Nigerian authorities say 200 children were involved in the Trovan experiment, without the approval of local regulatory authorities. They allege that as many as 11 died because of the treatment and that others developed deformities, including brain damage and paralysis.
Trovan was approved in the US in 1997 for use by adults but not by children. Two years later the US Food and Drug Administration warned that the drug could cause liver damage. The medicine has since been discontinued...
Bryant Haskins, a Pfizer spokesman in New York, said the drug was administered in accordance with Nigerian law. "These allegations against Pfizer, which are not new, are highly inflammatory and not based on all the facts," he said. "We continue to maintain ... that the Nigerian government was fully informed in advance of the clinical trial; that the trial was conducted appropriately, ethically and with the best interests of patients in mind; and that it helped save lives."
Pfizer has said previously that it obtained "verbal consent" from the parents of the affected children, and that the drugs were administered properly. But, before the trial, Juan Walterspiel, a disease specialist for Pfizer, warned the company that the drug was not "tested for its sensitivity before the first child was exposed to a live-or-die experiment".
Human rights groups have already accused some drugs firms of using Africa as a testing ground for medicines not approved by Europe or the US. In response to the Nigerian case,
Labels: Unethical Medical Research


3 Comments:
In my AIDS law class at Gtown, we had a big discussion on this, and in class of human rights liberals, I doubt I changed anyone's mind. And I found my views challenged with the Constant Gardner.
But in general, I find the big pharma's methods of clinical trials in Africa ethically fine.
1. big pharma's provide medicine and compensation to underserved areas of the world. 2. they do get the patient's consent. 3. any medical knowledge will benefit all humanity, so someone must be used as a guinea pig. 4. Westerners volunteer all the time. i tried to in college, but the on-campus study needed only 20 and had about 2000 applicants
Now, could it be better? Sure. Is "consent" idealistic? Of course, since the economic positions are not equal.
That said, I think the use of placebos when a head-to-head trial was possible isn't merely unethical, but criminal. I've heard of lots of crazy things going on in Africa, but that's a new one. If you have a cite for that, I'd love to learn more.
3. any medical knowledge will benefit all humanity, so someone must be used as a guinea pig.
So as long as it's poor dark people, it's fine?
This is exploitation. These people "consent" only because they lack the ability to get medication any other way. Companies exploit and abuse these poverty-stricken people's situations and rationalize it with "any medical knowledge will benefit all humanity, so someone must be used as a guinea pig." The ends don't justify the means. Exploiting the desperation of African parents to feed or medicate their children is a human rights abuse. Consenting to be the "guinea pig" because the alternative is suffering or starvation is not a free choice, it's coercive and opportunistic.
...and that would be the counter-argument.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home