Résumés
Résumé
Parmi les questions discutées en éthique de la recherche, il en est une qui resurgit de façon récurrente, c’est celle de l’usage du placebo. Cette question était au coeur des discussions précédant l’adoption de la dernière révision de la Déclaration d’Helsinki, en octobre 2000 à Édimbourg. Élaborée par l’Association médicale mondiale, la Déclaration d’Helsinki a pour objectif de fournir des recommandations destinées à guider les médecins et autres participants dans leurs recherches sur l’être humain.
Summary
The question of the use of the placebo is one of the most controversial in the field of the ethics of research today. The use of the placebo remains the standard practice of biomedical research in spite of the fact that various revisions of the Helsinki Declaration have sought to limit its use. In Canada, the Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans adopted a very restrictive position with respect to the use of placebos, precisely defining the situations in which its use would meet the demands of ethical research. The positions taken by the various ethical decision-making bodies are, however, hardly shared by regulatory bodies such as the Food and drug administration (FDA), the Council for international organization of medical sciences (CIOMS) or the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products (EMEA). This divergence of opinions reveals two quite different conceptions of what constitutes the ethical. In the case of decision-making bodies in the ethical field, it is clearly medicine’s Hippocratic Oath which explains their reluctance to use placebos. The first responsibility of the doctor is to «do no harm» to his or her patient. This duty is inherent to the medical profession and as such is not grounded in the view of medicine as a contract for care. In the case of regulatory bodies, it is the vision of «medicine as contract» which is in view; and it is this notion that justifies the use of placebos once free and informed consent has been obtained. It is also worth noting that these regulatory bodies make frequent use of arguments based on utilitarian ends. In an unprecedented move, the World medical association published in October 2001 a clarification note about the use of placebos. An analysis of this text raises the question about its real meaning: clarification or concession?
Parties annexes
Références
- 1. Rothman KJ, Michels KB. The continuing unethical use of placebo controls. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 394-8.
- 2. Angell M. Investigators’ responsibilities for human subjects in developing countries. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 967-9.
- 3. Boer GJ, Widner, H. Clinical neurotransplantation: core assessment protocol rather than sham surgery as control.Brain Res Bull 2002; 58: 547-53.
- 4. Conseil de recherches médicales du Canada, Conseil de recherches et sciences naturelles et en génie du Canada, Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada. Énoncé de politique des conseils. Éthique de la recherche avec des êtres humains. Ottawa, 1998.
- 5. McDonald MA. Gouvernance de la recherche en santé avec des sujets humains (RSSH). Ottawa: Commission du droit du Canada, 2000: 381.
- 6. Le Vérificateur général du Québec. Rapport à l’Assemblée nationale pour l’année 2000-2001, Tome I. Québec, 2001 : 253. (http://www.vgq.gouv.qc.ca).
- 7. Freedman B, Glass KC, Weijer C. Placebo orthodoxy in clinical research. II. Ethical, legal, and regulatory myths. J Law Med Ethics 1996; 24: 252-9.
- 8. Freedman B, Weijer C, Glass KC. Placebo orthodoxy in clinical research. I. Empirical and methodological myths. J Law Med Ethics 1996; 24: 243-51.
- 9. Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 2000; 356: 635-8.
- 10. Sackett DL. Equipoise, a term whose time (if it ever came) has surely gone. CMAJ 2000; 163: 835-6.
- 11. Sackett DL. Uncertainty about clinical equipoise. There is another exchange on equipoise and uncertainty. Br Med J 2001; 322: 795-6.
- 12. Sackett DL. Protection for human subjects in medical research. JAMA 2000; 283: 2388-9.
- 13. Miller FG. Placebo-controlled trials in psychiatric research: an ethical perspective. Biol Psychiatr 2000; 47: 707-16.
- 14. Walsh BT, Seidman SN, Sysko R, Gould M. Placebo response in studies of major depression: variable, substantial, and growing. JAMA 2002; 287: 1840-7.
- 15. Young SN, Annable L. The use of placebos in psychiatry: a response to the draft document prepared by the Tri-Council Working Group. Canadian College of Neuropsychopharmacology. J Psychiatr Neurosci 1996; 21: 235-8.
- 16. Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC. Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1594-602.
- 17. Levine RJ. The need to revise the Declaration of Helsinki. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 531-4.
- 18. Jost TS. The globalization of health law: the case of permissibility of placebo-based research. Am J Law Med 2000; 26: 175-86.
- 19. Kopp VJ. Should the Declaration of Helsinki be revised? N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1851-2.
- 20. Brennan TA. Proposed revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki-will they weaken the ethical principles underlying human research? N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 527-31.
- 21. Rothman KJ. Declaration of Helsinki should be strengthened. Br Med J 2000; 321: 442-5.
- 22. Vastag B. Helsinki discord? A controversial declaration. JAMA 2000; 284: 2983-5.
- 23. ICH harmonized tripartite guideline. Choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials. Genève : ICH, 2000 : 29.
- 24. Règlement modifiant le règlement sur les aliments et drogues, 1024 essais cliniques. Gaz Can 2001; 135 (II): 1116.
- 25. http://www.wma.net/f/policy/17-c_f.html. Consulté le 22 décembre 2003.
- 26. http://www.cioms.ch/frame_guidelines_nov_2002.htm. Consulté le 22 décembre 2003.
- 27. De Deyn PP. On the ethical acceptability of placebo application in neuropsychiatric research. Acta Neurol Belg 1995; 95: 8-17.