Udo Schüklenk

The ethical challenge is squarely focused on the question of what is owed to participants of vaccine trials who happen to become infected during the course of the trial. Not surprisingly, given the prominence of HIV/AIDS in many parts of the developing world, HIV vaccine trials have become the focal point of this debate. It is worth noting from the outset, however, that the same arguments that apply to HIV vaccines would apply to any number of microbicide trials aimed at protecting women against a large variety of sexually transmitted illnesses.1 One of the controversial questions in this debate has been the issue of whether or not an infection acquired by vaccine trial participants during the course of the trial can reasonably be considered a trial related injury that ought to be subject to compensation (in the form of access to good quality AIDS treatments, including antiretrovirals).

This response addresses criticisms in this journal of an Editorial written by Willem Landman and Udo Schuklenk. I demonstrate that the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights is in crucial aspects deficient, despite attempts in this journal to defend the Declaration against its critics. I focus on individual versus societal interests, research ethics, informed consent and the use of “human dignity” to illustrate the weaknesses of the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. This article concludes with reflections on what documents such as the UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights ought to be called to avoid the mislabelling of what essentially are policy documents.

Canada's Supreme Court decided in February 2015 that the criminalisation of assisted dying in the country violates the country's citizens and residents constitutional rights. This paper reviews policy recommendations produced by a special expert advisory panel appointed by Canada's provinces and territories, where the responsibility for the provision of health care lies. It also reviews a similar document produced by a special federal parliamentary committee. Based on the review of these two milestone documents it is argued that a Canadian consensus seems to emerge that foreshadows a permissive regulatory regime in that country.