Findings from University of Stellenbosch in the Area of Medical Ethics Reported (Disparate compensation policies for research related injury in an…

Findings from University of Stellenbosch in the Area of Medical Ethics Reported (Disparate compensation policies for research related injury in an era of multinational trials: a case study of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa)

By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at China Weekly News -- Fresh data on Ethics - Medical Ethics are presented in a new report. According to news reporting originating from Cape Town, South Africa, by VerticalNews correspondents, research stated, "Compensation for research related injuries is a subject that is increasingly gaining traction in developing countries which are burgeoning destinations of multi center research. However, the existence of disparate compensation rules violates the ethical principle of fairness."

Our news editors obtained a quote from the research from the University of Stellenbosch, "The current paper presents a comparison of the policies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS). A systematic search of good clinical practice guidelines was conducted employing search strategies modeled in line with the recommendations of ADPTE Collaboration (2007). The search focused on three main areas namely bibliographic data bases, clinical practice guidelines data bases and a restricted internet search. A manual search of references cited in relevant guideline documents was also conducted. The search terms, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and key words were developed for a PubMed platform and then adapted for all other data bases. The search terms were kept constant for each country with the only difference being the country name. The documents so obtained were subjected to systematic content analysis. The study revealed that there is vast panoply of regulations which exist on a continuum. On one extreme is India with comprehensive regulations that are codified into law, and on the other end there is China which does not have specific laws regulating research related injuries. There are a number of differences and similarities such as mandatory insurance requirements, existence of no fault compensation, compensable injuries and the role of research ethics committees. It is imperative to enact legislations that protect participants without stifling the research enterprise. There is need for consistency and ideally harmonization of such regulations at a global level."

According to the news editors, the research concluded: "A model policy on compensation for research related injuries should borrow from the best aspects of the different country policies and should be informed by the cardinal ethics principles of autonomy, justice and beneficence."

For more information on this research see: Disparate compensation policies for research related injury in an era of multinational trials: a case study of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. BMC Medical Ethics, 2018;19():1-12. BMC Medical Ethics can be contacted at: Biomed Central Ltd, 236 Grays Inn Rd, Floor 6, London WC1X 8HL, England. (BioMed Central - www.biomedcentral.com/; BMC Medical Ethics - www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmedethics/)

The news editors report that additional information may be obtained by contacting G.R. Chingarande, Stellenbosch Univ, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Center Med Eth & Law, Dept. of Med, ZA-8000 Cape Town, South Africa.

Keywords for this news article include: Cape Town, South Africa, Africa, Medical Ethics, Ethics, China, Asia, University of Stellenbosch.

Our reports deliver fact-based news of research and discoveries from around the world. Copyright 2018, NewsRx LLC