Health Care Analysis

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 215–236 | Cite as

Solidarity: A (New) Ethic for Global Health Policy

Original Article

Abstract

This article explores solidarity as an ethical concept underpinning rules in the global health context. First, it considers the theoretical conceptualisation of the value and some specific duties it supports (ie: its expression in the broadest sense and its derivative action-guiding duties). Second, it considers the manifestation of solidarity in two international regulatory instruments. It concludes that, although solidarity is represented in these instruments, it is often incidental. This fact, their emphasis on other values and their internal weaknesses diminishes the action-guiding impact of the solidarity rules. The global health and human subject research scene needs a completely new instrument specifically directed at means by which solidarity can be achieved, and a reformed infrastructure dedicated to realising that value.

Keywords

Solidarity Global health Human subject research Helsinki declaration CIOMS guidelines 

References

  1. 1.
    Angell M (2000) The pharmaceutical industry—To whom is it accountable. NEJM 352: 1902–1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arts W, Verburg R (2002) Modernisation, solidarity and care in Europe: The sociologist’s tale. In: ter Meulen R et al. (eds) Solidarity in health and social care in Europe. Springer, UK, pp 15–40Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashcroft R et al (2000) Solidarity, society and the welfare state in the United Kingdom. Health Care Anal 8: 377–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azariah J (2003) Asian Bioethics in global society. In: Sang-yong S, Young-Mo K, Macer D (eds) Asian bioethics in the 21st century. Eubios, NZ, pp 219–223Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bastian H (2001) What are the effects of the fifth revision of the declaration of Helsinki? Gains and losses for rights of consumers and research participants. BMJ 323: 1417–1423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benatar S (1998) Global disparities in health and human rights. AJPH 88: 395–400Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benatar S (2001) Distributive justice and clinical trials in the Third World. Theo Med 22: 169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Benatar S, Singer P (2001) Beyond Helsinki: A vision for global ethics. BMJ 322: 747–748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benatar S, Daar A, Singer P (2003) Global health ethics: The rationale for mutual caring. Int Aff 79: 107–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benatar S (2004) Blinkered bioethics. JME 30: 291–292Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhagwanjee S et al (1997) Why we did not seek informed consent before testing patients for HIV. BMJ 314: 1082Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhutta Z (2002) Ethics in international health research: A perspective from the developing world. WHO Bull 80: 114–120Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bhutta Z (2004) Standards of care in research. BMJ 329: 1114–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bond P (1999) Globalization, pharmaceutical pricing and South African health policy. IJHS 29(4): 765–792Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boter H et al (2004) Patients’ evaluation of informed consent to postponed information: Cohort study. BMJ 329: 86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brownsword R (2005) Biotechnology and rights: Where are we coming from and where are we going?. In: Klang M, Murray A (eds) Human rights in the digital age. Glasshouse, London, pp 219–234Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bruce A, Tait J (2003) Interests, values and biotechnological risk. INNOGEN Working Paper 7, at www.innogen.ac.uk/publications/Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Callahan D (2003) Principlism and communitarianism. JME 29: 287–291Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caplan A et al. (1999) The human genome project: What is immoral about eugenics? BMJ 319: 1284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carpenter W et al (2003) The declaration of Helsinki and clinical trials: A focus on placebo-controlled trials in Schizophrenia. AJ Psychiatry 160: 356–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cassel J, Young A (2002) Why we should not seek individual informed consent for participation in heath service research. BMJ 328: 313–317Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chadwick R (1999) The Iceland database: Do modern times need modern sagas? BMJ 319: 441–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chadwick R, Berg K (2001) Solidarity and equality: New ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nat Rev Genet 2: 318–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chee Khoon C (2003) Commodification and market-driven biomedical research. At www.biopolitics-berlin2003.orgGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Christie B (2000) Doctors revise declaration of Helsinki. BMJ 321: 913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clarke M (2001) War in the new international order. Int Aff 77: 663–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Commentary on Guideline 3, at www.cioms.ch/guidelines_nov_2002_blurb.htmGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (2002) Integrating intellectual property rights and development policy. CIPR, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Corrigan O (2004) Informed consent: The contradictory ethical safeguards in pharmacogenetics. In: Tutton R, Corrigan O (eds) Genetic databases: Socio-ethical issues in the collection and use of DNA. Routledge, London, pp 78–96Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Crawley F, Hoet F (1999) Ethics and law: The declaration of Helsinki Under Discussion. Bull ME 150: 9–12Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davis M (1997) Constitutionalism and political culture: The debate over human rights and Asian values. Harv HRJ 10: 109–148Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dawson A (2004) Methodological reasons for not gaining prior informed consent are sometimes justified. BMJ 329: 87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    de Bary W (1998) Asian values and human rights: A confucian communitarian perspective. Harvard U. Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Deutsch E, Taupitz J (1999) Freedom of control and biomedical research. Bull ME 150: 22–24Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Donne J, Meditation XVII (1624) Devotions upon emergent occasions. At http: //en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/john_donneGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eaton L (2005) Nuffield council calls for ethics framework for developing world research. BMJ 330: 618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Editorial (1999) The Helsinki declaration—Nothing to declare. Lancet 353: 1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Elazar D (1999) Jewish civilization and polity in a globalized world: A new vision for organized jewry. At www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/vision99.htmGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Forster H et al (2001) The 2000 revision of the declaration of Helsinki: A step forward or more confusion? Lancet 358: 1449–1453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Frankish H (2003) WMA postpones decision to amend declaration of Helsinki. Lancet 362: 963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fukuyama F (2002) Our posthuman future. Profile, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gevers J et al (2002) Popular support for health care in Europe: Review of the evidence of cross-national surveys. In: ter Meulen R, et al (eds) Solidarity in health and social care in Europe. Springer, UK, pp 41–76Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gillon R (2003) Ethics needs principles—Four can encompass the rest—and respect for autonomy should be ‘first among equals’.” JME 29: 307–312Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Global Forum for Health Research (2004) 10/90 Report on health research 2003–2004. GFHR, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Goldsand G et al (2001) Bioethics for clinicians: Jewish bioethics. CMAJ 164: 219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gwatkin D (2000) Health inequalities and the health of the poor: What do we know? What can we do? Bull WHO 78: 3–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Habermas J (2003) The future of human nature. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Halevi H The thirteen principles of Jewish medical ethics. At www.jewishpeople.net/jewmedet.htmGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Halsey N et al (1999) Ethics and international research. BMJ 315: 965–966Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Harmon S (2005a) The significance of UNESCO’s universal declaration on the human genome and human rights. SCRIPT-ed 2(1): 18–47, at www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/script-ed/vol2-1/harmon.pdfGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Harmon S (2005b) Regulation of human genomics & genetic biotechnology: Risks, values and analytical criteria. INNOGEN Working Paper 40, at www.innogen.ac.uk/publications/Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Harris J (2005) Scientific research is a moral duty. JME 31: 242–248Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hayry M (2003) European values in bioethics: Why, what and how to be used? Theo Med 24: 1999–214Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hirsch L, Guess H (2001) Some clauses will hinder development of new drugs and vaccines. BMJ 323: 1417–1423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Houtepen R, ter Meulen R (2000a) New types of solidarity in the European welfare state. Health Care Anal 8: 329–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Houtepen R, ter Meulen R (2000b) The expectation(s) of solidarity: Matters of justice, responsibility and identity in the reconstruction of the health care system. Health Care Anal 8: 355–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    HUGO Ethics Committee (2000) Statement on benefit sharing. At www.hugo-international.org/statement_on_benefit_sharing.htmGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Human D, Fluss S (2001) The world medical association’s declaration of Helsinki: Historical and contemporary perspectives. At www.wma.net/e/ethicsunit/pdf/draft_historical_contemporary_perspectives.pdfGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Joint UN Program on HIV/AIDS (2003) AIDS Epidemic Update 2003, Geneva, UN, available at www.unaids.orgGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Knoppers B (2004) Of biotechnology and man. Comm Gen 7: 176–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Knoppers B (2005) Of genomics and public health: Building public ‘goods’?. CMAJ 173(10): 1185—1186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lansang M, Crawley, F (2000) The ethics of international biomedical research. BMJ 321: 777–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lolas F (2000) Ethics in international health research: The role of transnational organizations. At http: //bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/321/7264/777Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Louw D (1997) Ubuntu: An African assessment of the religious other. At www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/ Afr/AfriLouw.htmGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    MacDonald C (2003) Patents and benefit-sharing as a challenge for corporate ethics. In: Knoppers B (ed) Populations and genetics: Legal and socio-ethical perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp 505–523.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Macer D, Su B (2004) Privacy versus public interest in developing human genetic databases. Eubios JAIB 14: 82–85Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Macer D (ed) (2004) Bioethics for informed citizens across cultures. Eubios Ethics Institute, NZGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Macer D Love and the history of Chinese bioethics. At www.phil.pku.edu.cn/post/center/love%20and %20the%20history%20of%20chinese%20bioethics.htmlGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Macklin R (2001) After Helsinki: Unresolved issues in international research. KIEJ 11: 17–36Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Macklin R (2003) Bioethics, vulnerability, and protection. Bioethics 17: 472–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mayor F (1990) Statement at ‘Genetics, ethics and human values: Human genome mapping, genetic screening and gene therapy,’ 24th CIOMS Conference, JapanGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Mayor F (1994) Preface. In: Proceedings of the first session of the IBC. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    McFaden A (1990) A call to personhood: A christian theory of the individual in social relationships. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    McGwire M (2001) Shifting the paradigm. Int Aff 77: 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    McGwire M (2001) The paradigm that lost its way. Int Aff 77: 777–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    McKibben W (2003) Enough. Bloomsbury, LondonGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Morgan D (2002) Science, medicine and ethical change. In: Bainham A, et al (eds) Body lore and laws. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 329–342Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Morgan P, Lawton C (eds) (1996) Ethical issues in six religious traditions. EUP, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Nuffield Council (2001) The ethics of clinical research in developing countries. NCB, LondonGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Nuffield Council (2002) The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries. NCB, LondonGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Nuffield Council (2005) The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries. NCB, LondonGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Onen C (2004) Medicine in resource-poor settings: Time for a paradigm shift? Clin Med 4: 355–360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Pettifor A (1996) Debt, the most potent form of slavery. Christian Aid Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Polansky L (2000) The ramifications of population. ZPG Reporter 32: 5–13Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Pullman D, Latus A (2003) Reconciling social justice and economic opportunism: Regulating the newfoundland genome. In: Knoppers B (ed) Populations and genetics: Legal and socio-ethical perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp 543–564Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Resnik D (2004) The distribution of biomedical research resources and international justice. DWB 4: 42–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Richards T (2002) Developed countries should not impose ethics on other countries. BMJ 325: 796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Schrecker T (2003) Benefit-sharing in the new genomic marketplace: Expanding the ethical frame of reference. In: Knoppers B (ed) Populations and genetics: Legal and socio-ethical perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp 405–421Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Shapiro K, Benatar S (2005) HIV prevention research and global inequality: Steps towards improved standards of care. J Med Ethics 31: 39–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Sitthi-amorn C et al (2002) The Asian voice in building equity in health for development—From the Asian forum for health research. Health Pol Plan 17: 213–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Steinbock B Rethinking the right to reproduce. At www.hsph.harvard.edu/organizations/healthnet/hupapers/reproright.htmlGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Stenton G (2004) Biopiracy within the pharmaceutical industry: A stark illustration of how abusive, manipulative and perverse the patenting process can be towards countries of the south. EIPR 26(1): 17–26Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Stuart S (2000) Species: Unprecedented extinction rate, and it’s increasing. IUCN Special Feature at www.iucn.org/info_and_news/press/species2000.htmlGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Suzuki Y (2003) Keynote address: International conference of drug regulatory authorities. At www.whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2003/a79903_(chp3).pdfGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    ter Meulen R et al (2000) Final report: Solidarity and care in the European Union. At http: //europa.eu.int/ comm/research/biosociety/pdf/bmh4_ct8_3971_partb.pdfGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Tollman S (2001) What are the effects of the fifth revision of the declaration of Helsinki? Fair partnerships support ethical research. BMJ 323: 1417–1423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    UNESCO (2005) Explanatory memorandum on the elaboration of the preliminary draft declaration on universal norms on bioethics. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    van Veen E (2005) Comments on the draft CIOMS international guidelines for ethical review of epidemiological studies. At www.medlaw.nl/documenten/comments.pdfGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Wallerstein I (1999) The end of the world as we know it: Social science for the twenty-first century. UMP, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Weijer C, Anderson J (2001) The ethics wars: Disputes over international research. Hastings Centre Report 31, No. 3Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    WHO (1999) Investing in health research and development. WHO Publications, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    WHO (2003) The world health report 2003. WHO Publications, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    WHO (2005) World health report 2005. WHO Publications, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    WMA Working group report on the revision of paragraph 30 of the declaration of Helsinki. WG/DoH/Jan2004Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Zadek S (1998) Balancing performance, ethics and accountability. J Bus Eth 17: 1421–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Zion D et al (2000) The declaration of Helsinki, CIOMS and the ethics of research on vulnerable populations. Nat Med 6: 615–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law University of Edinburgh Old CollegeEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations