The ethicolegal framework relevant to human faecal microbiota transplants in South Africa: Part 3. Stool as a 'drug' or medicine.

The purpose of this article, the last in a series of three exploring the legal framework for the regulation of faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in South Africa (SA), is to determine the regulatory framework that applies to microbial-based treatments involving a level of manipulation that exceeds that of basic stool transplantation, e.g. processed FMT-derived products in capsule form. The article highlights the legal requirements for the registration of these products as biological medicines in SA law. Although human stool banks are not regulated in terms of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 (NHA) and regulations, the earlier articles point out that human stool fits the definition of human tissue and human biological material as defined by the NHA. For this reason, stool banks should be considered tissue banks in terms of the NHA and regulations. Healthcare practitioners and researchers involved in FMT banking and transplantation should strive to comply with these regulations in the absence of clear legal direction at present.

The ethicolegal framework relevant to human faecal microbiota transplants in South Africa: Part 2. Human stool as tissue?

Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been shown to be an effective treatment for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection. The purpose of this article, the second of a series of three articles, is to explore the legal framework governing human FMT in South Africa (SA). FMT involves different modes of administration that require different regulatory considerations. The focus of this article is to explore the legal classification of human stool as tissue in terms of the National Health Act 61 of 2003, as well as the regulation of human stool banks as tissue banks. The article concludes with specific recommendations aimed at improving the current regulatory vacuum relating to the regulation of FMT in SA.

The ethicolegal framework relevant to human faecal microbiota transplants in South Africa: Part 1. A legal vacuum.

The legal regulation of faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in South Africa (SA) is currently unclear. The purpose of this article, the first of three in a series, is to explore the nature, role and clinical application of FMT in SA in order to determine, from a legal perspective, the appropriate regulatory pathways governing FMT as a procedure that may combine approaches for the treatment of drugs, human tissue for transplantation, or clinical treatment as part of the practice of medicine. FMT has been shown to be a novel, safe and effective treatment for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Stool banks are instrumental in enabling access to FMT for patients and clinicians and help to catalyse research in the microbiome. However, the regulatory landscape in SA remains unclear. Microbial therapies such as FMT are necessary, especially in a time of rising microbiome-associated inflammatory diseases and increasing resistance to traditional antibiotics. FMT is now considered as part of the standard of care for recurrent CDI overseas, but is currently only being used for research purposes in a minority of clinical cases of CDI in SA. This article, which lays the foundation for consideration of this question in three parts, suggests that the relevant regulatory system would depend on the categorisation of human stool as tissue, the exact composition of the FMT, how it is administered to patients, and the relevant levels of manipulation of the stool for FMT-derived products.

Privacy rights of human research participants in South Africa must be taken seriously.

Letter by Thaldar and Townsend, following an article by the same authors (Thaldar D, Townsend B. Genomic research and privacy: A response to Staunton et al. S Afr Med J 2020;110(3):172-174. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2020.v110i3.14431) and both commenting on an article by Staunton et al. (Staunton C, Adams R, Botes M, et al. Safeguarding the future of genomic research in South Africa: Broad consent and the Protection of Personal Information Act No. 4 of 2013. S Afr Med J 2019;109(7):468-470. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2019.v109i7.14148); and response to article and letter by Staunton et al.

Safeguarding the future of genomic research in South Africa: Broad consent and the Protection of Personal Information Act No. 4 of 2013.

Genomic research has been identified in South Africa (SA) as important in developing a strong bio-economy that has the potential to improve human health, drive job creation and offer potential solutions to the disease burden harboured by low- and middle-income countries. Central to the success of genomic research is the wide sharing of biological samples and data, but the true value of data can only be unlocked if there are laws and policies in place that foster the legal and ethical sharing of genomic data. The introduction and entry into force of SA's Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) No. 4 of 2013 is to be welcomed, but the wording of POPIA as it pertains to consent for the processing of personal information for research purposes has sparked a debate about the legal status of broad consent. We argue that a purposive interpretation of the legislation would permit broad consent for the processing of personal information for research. Although there are ongoing debates surrounding the ethical use of broad consent in Africa, the objective of this article is not to engage with the ethics of broad consent itself, but rather to focus on the legal status of broad consent for genomic data sharing under POPIA.

Protecting participants in health research: The South African Material Transfer Agreement.

The need to transfer human biological materials (HBMs) across national boundaries has become increasingly important in view of increased biobank and commercial activities globally. In light of South Africa (SA)'s history of colonisation and racial discrimination, coupled with well-known instances of exploitation of research participants in the developing world, it is critical that the management of HBMs from and to other jurisdictions is explored and regulated. Material transfer agreements (MTAs) represent an important point of departure in such a process. This article explores the need for a uniform MTA in SA and discusses some aspects of the recently gazetted national MTA, which provides a framework that can serve as a safeguard for cross-border transfer of HBMs in the absence of the National Health Act's chapter 8 regulations in this regard.