GA Resolution: Medical Research Ethics Act

[Ananke II]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

Medical Research Ethics Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Quadrimmina


Description: THIS WORLD ASSEMBLY,

RECOGNIZING the importance of medical research in supporting the body of knowledge in the field of medicine and improving the quality of life for all peoples.

REALIZING that medical research can be performed unethically, and cause permanent harm to the subject, sometimes without consent.

UNDERSTANDING that ethical dilemmas exist in medical research, including:
i. Excessive coercion or deception of prospective testing subjects.
ii. Exploiting weak, undereducated, or emotionally unstable subjects.


DEFINES an Institutional Review Board (IRB) as a board of individuals qualified to impartially analyze medical research proposals.

DECLARES that the use of prisoners of war for medical research is strictly forbidden.

REQUIRES WA member nations to create and regulate an IRB system, or by treaty to create an IRB system in conjunction with other WA member nations for collaborative scientific research efforts, to provide for nations that do not have a high amount of medical research or where establishing an IRB would be prohibitively expensive to the nation.

FURTHER REQUIRES that any entity within a WA nation that performs medical research on any individuals must have this research verified as ethical by the IRB to which their nation subscribes.

ESTABLISHES that all prospective researchers must provide the following documentation to the IRB:
i. A protocol that defines the purpose of the study, the methods to be used, the expected results and procedures in the event the trial has a negative impact on one or more trial subjects.
ii. The subject consent form, which accurately details the study and provides info about contacts for complaints.
iii. Information concerning qualification and contact info of all research personnel.
iv. Information concerning the subjects and how they are chosen.
v. Additional documentation as determined by national law.


FURTHER ESTABLISHES that research must be reviewed every year by an IRB. If the research is not approved, termination of the research must occur when all patients can be considered stable for release, and the IRB may take measures to ensure this happens in a timely manner for quick termination.

MANDATES that the IRBs be free from political pressure in their review of research.

REQUIRES that the IRBs reject any research that they reasonably believe may:
i. Cause participation that is not a result of an informed, impartial, and rational decision to provide consent except where the subject’s legal rights were removed by due process of law
ii. Cause preventable death, serious injury, or significant physical or psychological damage to a subject.


ENSURES that WA nations regulate issues regarding consent of individuals and how that consent can be responsibly terminated.

Co-Authored by The Star Kingdom of Manticore Reborn.

[MPlowsia]

I'm apt to vote no, though I'm open to changing my mind. Namely, this paragraph troubles me:

REQUIRES WA member nations to create and regulate an IRB system, or by treaty to create an IRB system in conjunction with other WA member nations for collaborative scientific research efforts, to provide for nations that do not have a high amount of medical research or where establishing an IRB would be prohibitively expensive to the nation.

This is just a vague cop-out, imo. What constitutes a nation that can afford it, and a nation that can not? And in collaborating between two or more nations, a mixed-nationality IRB board is going to disagree about what constitutes proper medical practices.

This reminds me of the Institute of Tobacco Studies that the tobacco industry used to run, to "research" the negative effects of cigarette smoke. Now I'm a smoker, and even *I* know that it was a bunch of bull. A nation allowed to create it's own IRB is going to load it with people of like minds, who are going to continue to let them do what they were already doing. Essentially, the taxes in a nation would go up so that they had the ILLUSION of safety. Healthy skepticism is currently a better system for countries that are using unsafe medical practices.

All in the all, this bill is great in concept, but in it's current wording I can't vote yes. Better no system than a flawed one, given that it could be re-drafted and submitted for review again.

[Pompadoodle]

I'm inclined to support the resolution, but not because its going to provide any sort of watertight human rights protection. As MPlowsia correctly points out, the fact that IRBs are constituted nationally and with zero international oversight pretty much rules that one out.

I think that there are 2 good things that this resolution does do though:

-It makes medical experiments on POWs illegal

-It creates a common institutional framework for all WA nations that carry out medical research. This would make international co operation in the field of medical research easier, especially if like-minded nations moved to having common IRB rules.

So...its not perfect by any means, but its better than nothing. I'm FOR.

[MPlowsia]

See, now I agree with you in principle. But what I'd rather see on the books is a basis for either treatment of Prisoners of War, or else a well outlined standard for medical practices. Since both of these are briefly touched on within this resolution, it seems less likely to be able to pass a resolution specifically on either of those subjects, however. Resolutions, as I understand them, tend to not like to piggyback or touch on the same rulings as other resolutions. I think a re-drafting of this resolution would be in order.

But that's just me. Great points Pompadoodle.

[Lakenburgh]

Hmm I don't think I would support this, simply because it just creates another administrative entity without anything more than vague guidelines on who has to be on it, what their legal powers are and how the cooperation with other countries takes place.

Sure the part with PoW is good, but could easily be handled on it's own agenda without the whole imo rather useless creation of another bureaucratic institute.

[Pompadoodle]

I also agree with you MPlowsia. Its for sure a badly thought out resolution, and your criticisms of it are spot on. I'm only for it because I think that theres a couple of provisions that are worth having. And I'm maybe more skeptical than you are re the likelihood of a good second version being produced and coming up for vote.

If it goes through then it can always get repealed. I'd vote for a repeal if I knew that there was a decent replacement resolution in the wings.

[Harpoon Man Henrik]

Isn't medical research on prisoners of war effectively covered by Prisoners of War Accord? I remember pointing this out to Quadrimmina at some point and being told that it wasn't, but I'd like to hear perspectives I might miss on the WA forums.

[Pompadoodle]

Sort of. The relevant passage in the Prisoners of War Accord is this:

PROHIBITS PoWs, and civilian & military internees, from being subject to physical or mental interrogation, coercion, medical procedures not required to ensure such person's health, killed (including the killing of unapprehended hostile troops who have surrendered), and other such violations of human rights.

Bold added.

This seems to clearly rule out the use of POWs as involuntary subjects for medical experiments. However, the phrase 'being subjected to' implies that 'voluntary' use of POWS might be OK. The current proposal is significantly stronger:

DECLARES that the use of prisoners of war for medical research is strictly forbidden.

This unambiguously rules out the use of POW volunteers as well. Since such volunteers would presumably be 'volunteers' in name only, I'd say thats an improvement.

[nwrnation]

Not to sure about this one. It does add some regulations that are needed to refrain from cruel punishment. But, a lot of might seem a little useless and would just be adding another 'ceiling' to which you can't by pass.

Will stand neutral on this one, kind of leaning towards vote for.

[ImperialPoland]

seems to me like a well written resolution. By that i mean I can't see any controversial clauses that I'd normally be inclined to argue against such as a nation's sovereignty, ect..

so, i think I'll vote in favor of this.