Stuart Rennie

More than 25 years into the HIV epidemic, in excess of 2 million new infections continue to occur each year. HIV prevention research is crucial for groups at heightened risk for HIV, but the design and conduct of HIV prevention research with vulnerable populations worldwide raises considerable ethical challenges. The HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) is a global collaborative network that conducts clinical and behavioural studies on non-vaccine interventions to reduce the transmission of HIV. In 2003, the HPTN developed ethical guidance to enhance the responsible conduct of its research activities and as a distinctive contribution to global research ethics. In what follows, the developments that motivated the drafting of a revised ethics document in 2009 are described, including the process by which that revision took place and some of the key differences between the HPTN ethics guidance and other relevant guidelines in the field

The effectiveness of antiretroviral regimes (ARVs) to reduce risk of HIV transmission from mother to child and as post-exposure prophylaxis has been known for almost two decades. Recent research indicates ARVs can also reduce the risk of HIV transmission via sexual intercourse in two other ways. With pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), ARVs are used to reduce risk of HIV acquisition among persons who are HIV negative and significantly exposed to the virus. With treatment as prevention (TasP), ARVs are used to reduce risk of HIV transmission from persons who are already HIV positive. The development of these new prevention strategies raises a rationing problem: given the chronic shortage of ARVs for HIV-infected persons in need of treatment, is it ethically justified to allocate ARVs for PrEP and/or TasP? This article examines the intuitively appealing view that allocation of ARVs for treatment should be the highest priority, the use of ARVs for TasP should be a secondary priority, and that utilizing ARVs for PrEP would be unethical. I will argue that selective, evidence-based allocation of ARVs for prevention in certain cases could be ethically justified even when there is insufficient anti-retroviral access for all those needing it for treatment

Through its adoption of the biomedical model of disease which promotes medical individualism and its reliance on the individual-based anthropology, mainstream bioethics has predominantly focused on respect for autonomy in the clinical setting and respect for person in the research site, emphasizing self-determination and freedom of choice. However, the emphasis on the individual has often led to moral vacuum, exaggeration of human agency, and a thin (liberal?) conception of justice. Applied to resource-poor countries and communities within developed countries, autonomy-based bioethics fails to address the root causes of diseases and public health crises with which individuals or communities are confronted. A sociological explanation of disease causation is needed to broaden principles of biomedical ethics and provides a renewed understanding of disease, freedom, medical practice, patient-physician relationship, risk and benefit of research and treatment, research priorities, and health policy

Significant inequalities in health between and within countries have been measured over the past decades. Although these inequalities, as well as attempts to improve sub-standard health, raise profound issues of social justice and the right to health, those working in the field of bioethics have historically tended to devote greater attention to ethical issues raised by new, cutting-edge biotechnologies such as life-support cessation, genomics, stem cell research or face transplantation. This suggests that bioethics research and scholarship may revolve around issues that, while fascinating and important, currently affect only a small minority of the world's population. In this article, we examine the accusation that bioethics is largely dominated by Anglophone and industrialized world interests, and explore what kinds of positive contributions a 'bioethics from below' (as Paul Farmer calls it) can make to the field of bioethics in general. As our guide in this exploration, we make use of some experiences and lessons learned in our collaborative bioethics project in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Building Bioethics Capacity and Justice in Health. We conclude that while there is some evidence of increased attention to bioethical challenges in developing countries, this development should be further cultivated, because it could help expand the horizons of the field and enhance its social relevance wherever it is practiced

In 2008, researchers reported that Timothy Brown , a man with HIV infection and leukemia, received a stem-cell transplant that removed HIV from his body as far as can be detected. In 2013, an infant born with HIV infection received anti-retroviral treatment shortly after birth, but was then lost to the health care system for the next six months. When tested for HIV upon return, the child had no detectable viral load despite cessation of treatment. These remarkable clinical developments have helped reinvigorate the field of ‘HIV cure’ research

With the advent of new AIDS treatment initiatives such as the World Health Organization's “3 by 5” program and the United States' “President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief,” the ethical questions about AIDS care in the developing world have changed. No longer are they fundamentally about the conduct of research; now, we must turn our attention to developing treatment programs. In particular, we must think about how to spread limited treatment resources among the vast reservoir of people who need them.

Over the past few years, a growing number of people have called for reconceptualizing participation in health research as a moral obligation. John Harris argues that seriously debilitating diseases give rise to important needs, and since medical research is necessary to relieve those needs in many circumstances, people are morally obligated to act as research subjects.1 Rosamond Rhodes claims that research participation is a moral obligation for reasons of justice, beneficence, and self-development: because we all benefit significantly from modern medicine, we are all required to do our part in advancing the state of medical knowledge.2 Individuals who reap the benefits of medical knowledge without contributing ..