Post-trial obligations in the Declaration of Helsinki 2013: classification, reconstruction and interpretation.

The general aim of this article is to give a critical interpretation of post-trial obligations towards individual research participants in the Declaration of Helsinki 2013. Transitioning research participants to the appropriate health care when a research study ends is a global problem. The publication of a new version of the Declaration of Helsinki is a great opportunity to discuss it. In my view, the Declaration of Helsinki 2013 identifies at least two clearly different types of post-trial obligations, specifically, access to care after research and access to information after research. The agents entitled to receive post-trial access are the individual participants in research studies. The Declaration identifies the sponsors, researchers and host country governments as the main agents responsible for complying with the post-trial obligations mentioned above. To justify this interpretation of post-trial obligations, I first introduce a classification of post-trial obligations and illustrate its application with examples from post-trial ethics literature. I then make a brief reconstruction of the formulations of post-trial obligations of the Declaration of Helsinki from 2000 to 2008 to correlate the changes with some of the most salient ethical arguments. Finally I advance a critical interpretation of the latest formulation of post-trial obligations. I defend the view that paragraph 34 of 'Post-trial provisions' is an improved formulation by comparison with earlier versions, especially for identifying responsible agents and abandoning ambiguous 'fair benefit' language. However, I criticize the disappearance of 'access to other appropriate care' present in the Declaration since 2004 and the narrow scope given to obligations of access to information after research.

Reducing confusion surrounding expert conceptions of Alzheimer's and dementia: A practical analysis.

Biological, clinicobiological and clinical conceptions of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are being promoted simultaneously to different practical ends. The co-existence of contemporary conceptions and the 'scary label' associated with older diagnostic criteria create the possibility of misunderstanding and harm. In this comment, we argue in favour of socio-ethical interventions targeted to health workers and the general public so as to lower the uncertainties introduced by contemporary diagnostic criteria and to articulate how they relate to established criteria.

An Argument for Simple Tests of Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease.

Two potential disease-modifying approaches for dementia are being vigorously tested: the early targeting of the neuropathology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and multi-domain lifestyle interventions to promote resilience to neuropathology. We apply the "web of information" model of clinical translation to both approaches to argue firstly that tests of treatments aiming to achieve clinically meaningful outcomes should remain simple, and secondly, that building clinically-meaningful treatments should be kept separate from public health policy which means promoting wide-reaching action against risk factors now with available information.

Avoiding Over-Reliance on Multi-Domain Interventions for Dementia Prevention.

Given the unknown therapeutic value of targeting Alzheimer's disease pathology and the discovery of robust risk factors for dementia, non-pharmacological risk reduction (RR) is increasingly offered as an alternative to targeting Alzheimer's disease pathology. While RR will surely be a useful tool to make public health gains, we propose solutions to three possible issues with over-reliance on multi-domain interventions to achieve RR: limited individual impact, an exclusive focus on later life, and overlooking social determinants of dementia. We argue in favor of a broader debate within the research community and greater society about how different therapeutic avenues should be explored.

COVID-19 vaccination certificates and lifting public health and social measures: ethical considerations.

Background: To reopen society, various countries are planning or have implemented differential public health and social measures (PHSMs) for COVID-19-vaccinated individuals, by exempting these individuals from some of the measures. Aims: To examine the ethical considerations raised by differential PHSMs by differrnt countries based on individual vaccination status verified by vaccination certificates. Discussion: Decisions on whether and when measures should be lifted specifically for vaccinated individuals should be guided by scientific and ethical considerations. These considerations include the public health risks of differential lifting, particularly in a context where a substantial portion of society is not vaccinated; mitigation of inequities and unfair disadvantages for unvaccinated individuals; and whether to permit other health certificates or credentials besides proof of vaccination as alternative options to access specific activities or services, as a way to balance public health and freedom of movement. Conclusion: Vaccination certificates may undermine a population-based approach to COVID-19 vaccination to achieve and accelerate universal lifting of PHSMs, result in unfair and inequitable health and social outcomes, and generate social divisions at a time when solidarity within (and between) countries is necessary to navigate the pandemic and its burdens. Further research on the ethical acceptability and impact of COVID-19 vaccine certificates in countries that have implemented them should be carried out to inform future ethical considerations on this issue.

Top five ethical lessons of COVID-19 that the world must learn.

As the world reflects upon one year since the first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prepare for and experience surges in cases, it is important to identify the most crucial ethical issues that might lie ahead so that countries are able to plan accordingly. Some ethical issues are rather obvious to predict, such as the ethical issues surrounding the use of immunity certificates, contact tracing, and the fair allocation of vaccines globally. Yet, the most significant ethical challenge that the world must address in the next year and beyond is to ensure that we learn the ethical lessons of the first year of this pandemic. Learning from our collective experiences thus far constitutes our greatest moral obligation. Appreciating that decision-making in the context of a pandemic is constrained by unprecedented complexity and uncertainty, beginning in June 2020, an international group of 17 experts in bioethics spanning 15 countries (including low-, middle-, and high-income countries) met virtually to identify what we considered to be the most significant ethical challenges and accompanying lessons faced thus far in the COVID-19 pandemic. Once collected, the group met over the course of several virtual meetings to identify challenges and lessons that are analytically distinct in order to identify common ethical themes under which different challenges and lessons could be grouped. The result, described in this paper, is what this expert group consider to be the top five ethical lessons from the initial experience with COVID-19 that must be learned.

The ethics of innovation for Alzheimer's disease: the risk of overstating evidence for metabolic enhancement protocols.

Medical practice is ideally based on robust, relevant research. However, the lack of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease has motivated "innovative practice" to improve patients' well-being despite insufficient evidence for the regular use of such interventions in health systems treating millions of patients. Innovative or new non-validated practice poses at least three distinct ethical questions: first, about the responsible application of new non-validated practice to individual patients (clinical ethics); second, about the way in which data from new non-validated practice are communicated via the scientific and lay press (scientific communication ethics); and third, about the prospect of making new non-validated interventions widely available before more definitive testing (public health ethics). We argue that the authors of metabolic enhancement protocols for Alzheimer's disease have overstated the evidence in favor of these interventions within the scientific and lay press, failing to communicate weaknesses in their data and uncertainty about their conclusions. Such unmeasured language may create false hope, cause financial harm, undermine informed consent, and frustrate the production of generalizable knowledge necessary to face the societal problems posed by this devastating disease. We therefore offer more stringent guidelines for responsible innovation in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

Proposal for the elaboration of a triage guideline in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This document offers a proposal for the elaboration of a triage guideline in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This proposal includes recommendations on the procedural norms and substantive norms that should govern the allocation and reallocation of therapeutic resources in conditions of extreme scarcity.

Este documento ofrece una propuesta desde la perspectiva de la bioética para la elaboración de un protocolo de triaje en el contexto de la pandemia de COVID-19. Dicha propuesta incluye recomendaciones sobre las normas procedimentales y normas sustantivas que deben regir la asignación y reasignación de recursos terapéuticos en condiciones de escasez extrema.

National Scientific Misconduct Policies in Argentina: Two Definitions of Research Misconduct.

In "An International Study of Research Misconduct Policies", Resnik et al. count Argentina in the list of countries without national research misconduct policies. In this paper, we clarify that Argentina has national policies of research misconduct and present the research misconduct definitions of two official science organisms: the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and the Ethics Committee of the Argentine Ministry of Science (MINCyT).

Cisnormatividad, un compromiso dañino en el diseño de las investigaciones en salud humana / Cisnormatividade, um compromisso prejudicial na concepção da investigação em saúde humana e nas iniciativas de mudança de paradigma / Cisnormativity, a harmful compromise in human health research design and paradigm shift initiatives

Resumen La bibliografía especializada ha presentado objeciones éticas a la exclusión de las mujeres embarazadas en los ensayos clínicos y ha llamado a cambiar de paradigma. Aunque indudablemente se trata de una causa justa, esta iniciativa está vertebrada por una compren- sión cisnormativa del género y, por consiguiente, reproduce sus problemas. En este artículo breve desplegamos estos problemas, que incluyen el borramiento epistémico e institucional de las personas trans, aplicándonos particularmente a la investigación en salud y la clínica médica, y defendemos que las iniciativas de cambio de paradigma se verían beneficiadas si adoptaran una noción de género más robusta y empíricamente informada.

Resumo A literatura levantou objeções éticas à exclusão de mulheres grávidas de ensaios clínicos e exigiu uma mudança de paradigma. Embora seja sem dúvida uma causa justa, esta iniciativa é sustentada por uma compreensão cisnormativa do gênero e reproduz assim seus problemas. Neste breve artigo desdobramos estes problemas, que incluem o apagamento epis- têmico e institucional das pessoas trans, aplicando-se particularmente à pesquisa em saúde e à clínica médica, e argumentamos que iniciativas de mudança de paradigma se beneficiariam da adoção de uma noção de gênero mais robusta e empiricamente informada.

Abstract Specialized literature has raised ethical objections to the exclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials and has called for a paradigm shift. While undoubtedly a just cause, this initiative is rooted in a cisnormative understanding of gender and therefore reproduces its problems. In this brief article we unfold these problems, which include the epistemic and institutional erasure of trans people, applying particularly to health research and medical clinic, and argue that paradigm-shift initiatives would benefit from adopting a more robust and empirically informed notion of gender.

Propuesta para la elaboración de un protocolo de triaje en el contexto de la pandemia de COVID-19 / Proposal for the elaboration of a triage guideline in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic / Proposta per a l'elaboració d'un protocol de prova en el context de la pandèmia de COVID-19

Este documento ofrece una propuesta desde la perspectiva de la bioética para la elaboración de un protocolo de triaje en el contexto de la pandemia de COVID-19. Dicha propuesta incluye recomendaciones sobre las normas procedimentales y normas sustantivas que deben regir la asignación y reasignación de recursos terapéuticos en condiciones de escasez extrema

This document offers a proposal for the elaboration of a triage guideline in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This proposal includes recommendations on the procedural norms and substantive norms that should govern the allocation and reallocation of therapeutic resources in conditions of extreme scarcity

Aquest document ofereix una proposta des de la perspectiva de la bioètica per a l'elaboració d'un protocol de triatge en el context de la pandèmia de COVID-19. L'esmentada proposta inclou recomanacions sobre les normes procedimentals I normes substantives que han de regir l'assignació I reassignació de recursos terapèutics en condicions d'escassetat extrema