Pharmaceutical Companies vs. the State: Who Is Responsible for Post-Trial Provision of Drugs in Brazil?
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (2):188-196 (2012)
This paper discusses the post-trial access to drugs for patients who participated in clinical trials in Brazil. The ethical guidance for clinical trials in Brazil is arguably one of the clearest in the world in attributing to research sponsors the responsibility for providing post-trial drugs to patients who participated in their experiments. The Federal Constitution recognizes health as a fundamental right to be fulfilled by the State. Based on the Brazilian constitution and on the National Health Council resolutions, courts have been accepting patients' claims and ordering the State and the pharmaceutical companies to provide these patients with the tested treatment in the quantity and duration they need it. This generous interpretation of the duties of the pharmaceutical companies and the State makes the Brazilian model for post-trial access unique when compared to the experience of other countries and thus should be followed with attention by future research in order to assess its consequences for patients, research sponsors, and the public health system
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Nicole Hassoun (2012). Global Health Impact: A Basis for Labeling and Licensing Campaigns? Developing World Bioethics 12 (3):121-134.
Pepe Lee Chang (2006). Who's in the Business of Saving Lives? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (5):465 – 482.
Udo Schüklenk & Christopher Lowry (2009). Terminal Illness and Access to Phase 1 Experimental Agents, Surgeries and Devices: Reviewing the Ethical Arguments. British Medical Bulletin 89 (1):7-22.
Onyeka K. Osuji & Okechukwu Timothy Umahi (2012). Pharmaceutical Companies and Access to Medicines – Social Integration and Ethical CSR Resolution of a Global Public Choice Problem. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (2-3):139-167.
William Flanagan & Gail Whiteman (2005). “AIDS is Not a Business”. International Corporate Responsibility Series 2:375-391.
Emma R. M. Cohen, Jennifer M. O'neill, Michel Joffres, Ross E. G. Upshur & Edward Mills (2009). Reporting of Informed Consent, Standard of Care and Post-Trial Obligations in Global Randomized Intervention Trials: A Systematic Survey of Registered Trials. Developing World Bioethics 9 (2):74-80.
Lois Snyder & Paul S. Mueller (2008). Research in the Physician's Office:. Hastings Center Report 38 (2):23-25.
Joo-Young Lee & Paul Hunt (2012). Human Rights Responsibilities of Pharmaceutical Companies in Relation to Access to Medicines. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (2):220-233.
Ana Smith Iltis (2005). Third-Party Payers and the Costs of Biomedical Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (2):135-160.
Anand Grover, Brian Citro, Mihir Mankad & Fiona Lander (2012). Pharmaceutical Companies and Global Lack of Access to Medicines: Strengthening Accountability Under the Right to Health. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40 (2):234-250.
Joseph Millum (2011). Post-Trial Access to Antiretrovirals: Who Owes What to Whom? Bioethics 25 (3):145-154.
Added to index2012-07-13
Total downloads9 ( #223,023 of 1,696,514 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #343,026 of 1,696,514 )
How can I increase my downloads?