欧盟基本权利的问题之路:继续临床试验监管之旅

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
Caterina Di Costanzo
{"title":"欧盟基本权利的问题之路:继续临床试验监管之旅","authors":"Caterina Di Costanzo","doi":"10.1163/15718093-bja10089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn this paper I have tried to identify and analyse some critical points that Regulation No. 526 of 2014 on clinical trials still presents. I have seen that in the face of a long gestation, the criticisms that have been made of the regulation have been various. If we think of the first criticism identified in the regulation, the so-called law shopping, we must affirm that the subject of experimentation is a very delicate matter since it has a direct and frontal impact on the guarantee of the right to health of European citizens and the use of law shopping does not provide adequate guarantees for the protection of the rights of those participating in a trial. Secondly, the marginalisation of the Ethics Committees whose role is decided at the level of the single national legal system does not ensure that components of independence and representation of the point of view of patients and their associations are guaranteed. This aspect is undoubtedly an important criticism of the regulation as the importance of the role played by the Ethics Committees in the assessment procedures for authorisation applications is not taken into fully consideration. Also, in this case, the economic need for simplification and speed of the evaluation procedure seem to prevail over the need to ensure a thorough and independent scientific and ethical review of authorisation applications. We believe that in the case of Regulation No. 536 of 2014, greater awareness of risks and opportunities will be achieved only by verifying in practice the possible distortions to which this legislation can lead. Only through serious monitoring and reporting of the effects of the regulation on the protection of patients’ rights will it be possible to identify and indicate targeted changes to the rules contained therein and, of course, to adopt the consequent measures to reduce possible damages. In this sense, also on the basis of a possible and foreseeable future phase of gestation of Regulation No. 534 of 2014, we believe that in the European area, in the field of clinical trials but not exclusively, that trend, developed above all in the French context, of the “experimentation of laws” should be further cultivated.","PeriodicalId":43934,"journal":{"name":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Problematic Path of Fundamental Rights in the European Union: Continuing the Journey on the Regulation on Clinical Trials\",\"authors\":\"Caterina Di Costanzo\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718093-bja10089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn this paper I have tried to identify and analyse some critical points that Regulation No. 526 of 2014 on clinical trials still presents. I have seen that in the face of a long gestation, the criticisms that have been made of the regulation have been various. If we think of the first criticism identified in the regulation, the so-called law shopping, we must affirm that the subject of experimentation is a very delicate matter since it has a direct and frontal impact on the guarantee of the right to health of European citizens and the use of law shopping does not provide adequate guarantees for the protection of the rights of those participating in a trial. Secondly, the marginalisation of the Ethics Committees whose role is decided at the level of the single national legal system does not ensure that components of independence and representation of the point of view of patients and their associations are guaranteed. This aspect is undoubtedly an important criticism of the regulation as the importance of the role played by the Ethics Committees in the assessment procedures for authorisation applications is not taken into fully consideration. Also, in this case, the economic need for simplification and speed of the evaluation procedure seem to prevail over the need to ensure a thorough and independent scientific and ethical review of authorisation applications. We believe that in the case of Regulation No. 536 of 2014, greater awareness of risks and opportunities will be achieved only by verifying in practice the possible distortions to which this legislation can lead. Only through serious monitoring and reporting of the effects of the regulation on the protection of patients’ rights will it be possible to identify and indicate targeted changes to the rules contained therein and, of course, to adopt the consequent measures to reduce possible damages. In this sense, also on the basis of a possible and foreseeable future phase of gestation of Regulation No. 534 of 2014, we believe that in the European area, in the field of clinical trials but not exclusively, that trend, developed above all in the French context, of the “experimentation of laws” should be further cultivated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-bja10089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-bja10089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在本文中,我试图识别和分析2014年第526号条例关于临床试验仍然存在的一些关键点。我看到,在漫长的酝酿过程中,对监管的批评是各种各样的。如果我们考虑到条例中确定的第一个批评,即所谓的“选购法律”,我们必须确认,实验的主题是一个非常微妙的问题,因为它对保障欧洲公民的健康权有直接和正面的影响,而使用“选购法律”并不能为保护参与审判的人的权利提供充分的保障。其次,伦理委员会的边缘化,其作用是在单一的国家法律制度一级决定的,并不能确保独立性的组成部分和患者及其协会观点的代表性得到保障。这方面无疑是对该规例的重要批评,因为该规例没有充分考虑道德操守委员会在授权申请评估程序中所扮演的重要角色。此外,在这种情况下,简化和加快评估程序的经济需要似乎压倒了确保对授权申请进行彻底和独立的科学和道德审查的需要。我们认为,就2014年第536号法规而言,只有在实践中验证该立法可能导致的扭曲,才能提高对风险和机遇的认识。只有通过认真监测和报告条例对保护病人权利的影响,才有可能查明和指出对其中所载规则的有针对性的改变,当然,还可能采取相应的措施来减少可能的损害。从这个意义上说,也基于2014年第534号法规可能和可预见的未来孕育阶段,我们认为,在欧洲地区,在临床试验领域,但不限于此,应该进一步培养首先在法国背景下发展起来的“法律实验”趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Problematic Path of Fundamental Rights in the European Union: Continuing the Journey on the Regulation on Clinical Trials
In this paper I have tried to identify and analyse some critical points that Regulation No. 526 of 2014 on clinical trials still presents. I have seen that in the face of a long gestation, the criticisms that have been made of the regulation have been various. If we think of the first criticism identified in the regulation, the so-called law shopping, we must affirm that the subject of experimentation is a very delicate matter since it has a direct and frontal impact on the guarantee of the right to health of European citizens and the use of law shopping does not provide adequate guarantees for the protection of the rights of those participating in a trial. Secondly, the marginalisation of the Ethics Committees whose role is decided at the level of the single national legal system does not ensure that components of independence and representation of the point of view of patients and their associations are guaranteed. This aspect is undoubtedly an important criticism of the regulation as the importance of the role played by the Ethics Committees in the assessment procedures for authorisation applications is not taken into fully consideration. Also, in this case, the economic need for simplification and speed of the evaluation procedure seem to prevail over the need to ensure a thorough and independent scientific and ethical review of authorisation applications. We believe that in the case of Regulation No. 536 of 2014, greater awareness of risks and opportunities will be achieved only by verifying in practice the possible distortions to which this legislation can lead. Only through serious monitoring and reporting of the effects of the regulation on the protection of patients’ rights will it be possible to identify and indicate targeted changes to the rules contained therein and, of course, to adopt the consequent measures to reduce possible damages. In this sense, also on the basis of a possible and foreseeable future phase of gestation of Regulation No. 534 of 2014, we believe that in the European area, in the field of clinical trials but not exclusively, that trend, developed above all in the French context, of the “experimentation of laws” should be further cultivated.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Jewish Studies (EJJS) is the Journal of the European Association for Jewish Studies (EAJS). Its main purpose is to publish high-quality research articles, essays and shorter contributions on all aspects of Jewish Studies. Submissions are all double blind peer-reviewed. Additionally, EJJS seeks to inform its readers on current developments in Jewish Studies: it carries comprehensive review-essays on specific topics, trends and debated questions, as well as regular book-reviews. A further section carries reports on conferences, symposia, and descriptions of research projects in every area of Jewish Studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信