A tale of two bioethics journals
The Indian Journal of Medical Ethics is tackling quite another kettle of fish, very much non-speculative in character. Researchers conducted a randomized placebo controlled trial of cervical cancer diagnostics in India, despite (a) the intervention being tested already widely being regarded as efficacious, and certainly more effective than no screening at all and (b) despite the possibility of testing their hypothesis by using an existing diagnostic (Pap smear) as comparator. For a decade, some 76,000 Indian women were monitored (apparently including monitoring of the growth of their cervical cancer) but allegedly did not receive sufficient information regarding alternatives to screening and did not adequately consent to the study. It is said that over the years, 6.5 more women died in the control group from cervical cancer than the intervention group. The ethics of this study is what the current issue of the IJME is debating, with scientists defending it, and journalists and ethicists criticizing it.
Labels: american journal of bioethics, bioethics, cervical cancer, enhancement, ethics, indian journal of medical ethics, Research ethics