Developing World Bioethics 16 (2):64-69 (2016)

In medical research, the ethical principle of respect for persons is operationalized into the process of informed consent. The consent tools should be contextualized and adapted to the different socio-cultural environment, especially when research crosses the traditional boundaries and reaches poor communities. We look at the challenges experienced in the malaria Quinact trial, conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and describe some lessons learned, related to the definition of acceptable representative, the role of independent witness and the impact of socio-economic vulnerability. To ensure children's protection, consent is required by the parents or, in their absence, by a legally mandated representative. In our setting, children's responsibility is often entrusted permanently or temporarily to relatives or friends without a tribunal mandate. Hence, a notion of ‘culturally acceptable representative’ under supervision of the local Ethics Committee may be more suitable. To ensure protection of illiterate subjects, an independent witness is required to confirm that the consent was freely given. However, in low-literacy contexts, potential witnesses often don't have any previous relationship with patient and there may be power-unbalance in their relationship, rather than genuine dialogue. In poor communities, trial participation may be seen as an opportunity to secure access to healthcare. Poverty may also lead to ‘competition’ to access the research-related benefits, with a risk of disturbance at societal or household level. Adjusting consent procedures to sociocultural and socioeconomic realities is essential for fulfilling the underlying ethical principles. This requires a collaborative dialogue between researchers, regulators and ethics committees.
Keywords research ethics  clinical trials  patient protection  sub‐Saharan Africa  informed consent
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/dewb.12090
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,417
External links

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

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

“Reasonable Availability” Criterion Remains Salient.Bridget Gabrielle Haire - 2016 - American Journal of Bioethics 16 (6):19-21.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Emergency Research Without Consent Under Polish Law.Joanna Różyńska & Marek Czarkowski - 2007 - Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3):337-350.
Can Informed Consent to Research Be Adapted to Risk?Danielle Bromwich & Annette Rid - 2015 - Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (7):521-528.
Informed Consent and Routinisation.Thomas Ploug & Soren Holm - 2013 - Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (4):214-218.
Research on Medical Records Without Informed Consent.Franklin G. Miller - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (3):560-566.


Added to PP index

Total views
24 ( #454,250 of 2,449,099 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #442,577 of 2,449,099 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes