Letter: Medicine needs `guinea-pigs'

Sue Vogel
Saturday 17 May 1997 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Your article about the clinical trial of CNEP (continuous negative extrathoracic pressure) in premature babies poses disturbing questions about the ethics and nature of informed consent ("Parents say `guinea-pig' trial killed their babies", 11 May).

I am a clinical trials co-ordinator in a London hospital. We conduct trials according to the Good Clinical Practice Guidelines of the EU and in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Patients are presented with all the information about the study drugs, including side-effects, in laymans language, and the guidelines stipulate that they must be told how they will be compensated if they suffer injury as a result of participation. Patients are usually given at least 24 hours to decide whether to participate, and are told that their future care and treatment will not be prejudiced if they refuse. Patients are not recruited if their illness requires emergency treatment and we are hesitant if their distress would delay their decision so as to cause a worsening of their condition. Where patients choose not to take part they are offered the best proven treatment for their condition.

From your article this does not appear to have been the case with the CNEP babies. Medical research cannot advance in the absence of clinical trials and the controversy surrounding the CNEP case serves only to make people suspicious of any research, rather than commonsensically cautious. People do have rights in respect of medical treatment, and particularly in respect of clinical trials. What is lacking is education about these.

Sue Vogel, Bedford

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in