Justice denied

Women in cervical cancer trials have died for the sake of research methodology

And the courts have dismissed their case.

Amartya Sen has observed that “among the most important freedoms we can have is freedom from avoidable ill health and from escapable mortality”. In other words, public health is inextricably linked to human rights. Unfortunately, we in India have a long way to go before we can accept this relationship.

This was evident on January 23 when Supreme Court’s dismissed a public interest litigation on unethical research on cervical cancer screening for poor women by Tata Memorial Hospital, the country’s top cancer institute, and other institutions.

Three trials were conducted on some 3,75,000 poor women in Mumbai slums and villages in Osmanabad district of Maharashtra and Dindigul in Tamil Nadu – regions with high prevalence of cervical cancer. The Mumbai trial was funded by the Unites States’ National Institutes of Health and the other two trials were funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The trials evaluated whether trained “non-doctors” –health workers, auxiliary midwives and nurses – could use “visual inspection with acetic acid” to detect cervical cancer early.

The objective to help poor women with little access to healthcare is laudable. The standard screening test for cervical cancer is the pap smear, which is expensive and must be conducted by a trained doctor. An affordable test for early detection and treatment of cervical cancer would give women freedom from avoidable ill health and from avoidable death from this disease.

The problem was that these trials contained a “no screening” control arm where about 1,41,000 women were deliberately not offered any test for cervical cancer in order to compare the differences in outcomes between screened and unscreened women – that is, how many in each group would fall ill and die from cervical cancer. A total of 548 women enrolled in the trial eventually died of cervical cancer, of which 254 were from the group that had not been screened. These 254 women were not given the option of having their cancers detected early and treated.

International covenants to which India is a signatory, such as the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association, and national guidelines of the Indian Council of Medical Research have severe restrictions on the use of placebo or no-treatment groups in clinical trials. Placebo or no-treatment is permitted only when absolutely necessary, when there is no alternative effective intervention and when it will not cause severe or irreversible harm.

Presumably on these grounds the institutional review board of Tata Memorial Hospital declared in 2009 the “no screening” arm of the trial unethical and ordered it to be stopped. But the trial continued with no change in protocol.

In 2012, the US Office for Human Research Protection, which has authority over US government-funded research, examined the informed consent form used in the Tata Memorial Hospital trial and found it to be inadequate and grossly misleading. The office accepted a “correction” – that women in the control arm be offered screening. But an application under the Right to Information Act in 2014 revealed that the hospital did not know how many women in the control arm of the Mumbai trial received screening – if any.

Even this incontrovertible evidence of violations was apparently not sufficient reason to admit the PIL.

Clinical trial risks and harm

There appears to be some misconceptions on the way risk and harm in the course of the medical trial have been perceived. Both the researchers involved in the trial and jurists contended that the women were not harmed because they were not given drugs. Even though no drug was used in the trial, more than 1,40,000 women were not given a potentially life-saving test and some of these women suffered irreversible harm as a result. An act of omission can cause equal harm. The majority of women in the control arm diagnosed with cervical cancer came in only when the symptoms disturbed them in stages three and four of their cancers when they are largely untreatable. The women’s lives could have been saved if they had been screened and treated earlier.

The jurists also seemed to agree with the researchers that poor women in villages would not have otherwise received cancer screening; at least this way some women were offered this inexpensive and effective test. The researchers also made the case that this research has enabled the introduction of the cervical cancer test into the national programme. However, even though women in rural areas are not regularly screened for cervical cancer, when they are enrolled in a trial, researchers conducting the trial have a duty to screen all of them and not just 50% of them.

Human rights are founded on principles of moral philosophy, which lay the foundations for ethics including the code of professional ethics. Researchers have a higher ethical obligation to trial participants than doctors have towards their patients. They must look after the best interests of all participants, even those who would not otherwise have access to regularcare. No participant may be subjected to avoidable harm.

Knowledge and consent

Another grounds on which the public interest litigation was dismissed was that these women gave their voluntary informed consent to participate in the trial, this despite the fact that the US Office for Human Research Protection report that the consent forms were inadequate and misleading.. No one with complete knowledge and autonomy would willingly enter a trial if she knew that, as part of the very structure of the trial, she would not be offered an available and potentially life-saving health intervention.

This case seems to show that both researchers and jurists misunderstand the concepts that ethical violations can also result from the absence of action, that researchers have special responsibilities and that consent must be truly informed and voluntary. The undisputed association between poverty and poor health should be the prism through which such research is viewed. But that will have to wait another day.

Veena Johari is a human rights lawyer based in Mumbai and was involved in filing the RTI and drafting the PIL.

Note: The first petitioner in this PIL is Sandhya Srinivasan, who is associated with Scroll.in as consulting editor. The second petitioner was Mahila Sarvangeen Utkarsh Mandal (MASUM), a Pune-based organization working in women’s health and rights.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.