4.2 Article

Professional Oversight of Emergency-Use Interventions and Monitoring Systems: Ethical Guidance From the Singapore Experience of COVID-19

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 327-339

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11673-022-10171-1

关键词

COVID-19; Emerging communicable diseases; Ethical framework; Professional ethics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about high levels of uncertainty and limited effective treatment options. Providing drug products outside of research settings has been a controversial topic. This article proposes the use of the Professional Oversight of Emergency-Use Interventions and Monitoring System (POEIMS) as an alternative pathway, based on guidance developed in Singapore. The authors argue for the moral duty of physicians to record outcomes data and institutions to establish monitoring systems for reporting safety and effectiveness information.
High degrees of uncertainty and a lack of effective therapeutic treatments have characterized the COVID-19 pandemic and the provision of drug products outside research settings has been controversial. International guidelines for providing patients with experimental interventions to treat infectious diseases outside of clinical trials exist but it is unclear if or how they should apply in settings where clinical trials and research are strongly regulated. We propose the Professional Oversight of Emergency-Use Interventions and Monitoring System (POEIMS) as an alternative pathway based on guidance developed for the ethical provision of experimental interventions to treat COVID-19 in Singapore. We support our proposal with justifications that establish moral duties for physicians to record outcomes data and for institutions to establish monitoring systems for reporting information on safety and effectiveness to the relevant authorities. Institutions also have a duty to support generation of evidence for what constitutes good clinical practice and so should ensure the unproven intervention is made the subject of research studies that can contribute to generalizable knowledge as soon as practical and that physicians remain committed to supporting learning health systems. We outline key differences between POEIMS and other pathways for the provision of experimental interventions in public health emergencies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据