Remnants of Colonization Series - Dear West, Black People are NOT Experiments: Outrageous COVID-19 Clinical Trial Proposal

By: Danielle D. Rogers

In the late nineteenth century, Europeans sought to conquest sub-Saharan Africa and impose their colonial model on imperial subjects to ameliorate the health of Africans for a “civilized” labor force.[1] However, these efforts radically disrupted and altered the lives of Africans, and negatively impacted the generations to come.[2] Hundred of thousands of Africans died from disease and the colonial efforts to create export-oriented economies had “adverse effects on Africans’ health.”[3] Decades later, Western countries continued to adopt this model and prioritize the interests of science and society over the welfare of Black individuals through experiments on enslaved people stolen from Africa,[4] the Tuskegee Syphilis study, and the AZT 076 Clinical Trials in Africa.[5] The weaponization of healthcare and science to commit egregious human rights violations around the world continues to negatively impact people of the African diaspora.[6]

Recently, during a televised discussion, two French doctors made controversial comments about testing a potential COVID-19 treatment in Africa.[7] The doctors, Dr. Jean-Paul Mira, head of the intensive care unit services at Cochin Hospital in Paris, and Camille Locht, research director for Inserm, appeared on French television channel LCI to discuss whether the BCG tuberculosis vaccine could serve as a potential treatment for COVID-19.[8]

Mira asked, “If I could be provocative, should we not do this study in Africa where there are no masks, treatment or intensive care, a little bit like it’s done, by the way, for certain AIDS studies or with prostitutes?”[9] He added, “we know that they are highly exposed and they don't protect themselves.”[10]

Locht responded, “You are right. And by the way, we are in the process of thinking in parallel about a study in Africa ...That doesn’t prevent us, in parallel, from also thinking about a study in Europe and in Australia.”[11]

Rightfully so, the remarks sparked much outrage.[12] World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom condemned the remarks as racist and stated that the comments of the French Doctors are a “hangover from a colonial mentality.”[13] Former Ivory Coast footballer, Didier Drogba tweeted, “Africa isn’t a testing lab,” and “I would like to vividly denounce those demeaning, false and most of all deeply racist words.”[14] A Moroccan lawyers’ collective expressed their intention to sue Mira for racial defamation.[15] Senegalese footballer Demba Ba remarked “welcome to the West where white people believe themselves to be so superior that racism and stupidity have become commonplace.”[16] Additionally, Cameroonian football superstar, Samuel Eto’o also commented on the discussion between the doctors, stating “You sons of bitches.”[17]

Mira’s employer released a statement quoting Mira as stating, “I want to present all my apologies to those who were hurt, shocked and felt insulted by the remarks that I clumsily expressed on LCI this week.”[18] On Twitter, Inserm stated that many misinterpreted the video exchange of the doctors without providing further room to elaborate, and noted that trials for the vaccine are ran only in Europe and Australia.[19]

Sources indicate that despite the increased weaponization of scientists and health personnel, the global health and science communities have not documented this trend nor created formal mechanisms for accountability.[20] Yet, international law could potentially serve as a meaningful tool against the use of science to commit human rights violations.[21] Many international documents discuss human subject experimentation.[22] However, this post briefly examines how the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights could serve as a formal mechanism for accountability.

The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (“Declaration”) presents an approach that improves upon past international bioethics instruments.[23] The rationale behind the Declaration stems from the lack of bioethical guidelines in countries with emerging economies.[24] In 2006, the United Nations had over 190 member states and only around 50 had committees for bioethics.[25] Universalists are often concerned that researchers will take advantage of lower bioethics standards in countries with emerging economies to perform studies that would be unethical and impermissible.[26] The Declaration prioritizes individual interests and welfare over the interests of science and society, cultural competency, protection for vulnerable groups, and “equal participation” in negotiation to allow for ethical review by a country who might lack the resources of a large pharmaceutical company.[27] Unlike the Nuremberg Code,[28] the Declaration prioritizes sharing the benefits from scientific research throughout society and the international community.[29] Further, the Declaration focuses on change at a governmental level and aims its approach to “States.”[30]

Critics of the Declaration have often noted that “the Declaration is at best a toothless statement of vague principles, and at worst a potential source of mischief.”[31] The Declaration failed to mention “any international judicial or regulatory body in any part of the Universal Declaration,”[32] and calls for states to “take all appropriate measures, whether of a legislative, administrative or other character, to give effect to the principles.”[33] Drafters of the Declaration believed that international cooperation and the promotion of its principles warrant sufficient protection against unethical research and experimentation.[34]

Despite the criticisms of the Declaration, countries have the ability to look at several national, international, and supranational approaches to protect individuals from human research exploitation. In particular, governmental bodies could ratify the Declaration, amend vague terms, and authorize a judicial body, whether local or international, to prosecute violations of the Declaration. Additionally, regulatory agencies and local authorities could serve as a mechanism for the enforcement of the Declaration. Western countries must be held accountable for the structural inequalities created by colonization in the healthcare and science community. The Declaration and other bioethics instruments offer a promising foundation to prevent the exploitation of individuals participating in human subject research.

Picture taken from Face2Face Africa and credited to New African Magazine.

#France #Africa #COVID-19 #HumanRights #InternationalLaw #Rogers

[1] See Helen Tilley, History of Medicine, Medicine, Empires, and Ethics in Colonial Africa, 18 AMA J. of Ethics

743 (2016), https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/sites/journalofethics.ama-assn.org/files/2018-05/mhst1-1607.pdf.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Brynn Holland, The ‘Father of Modern Gynecology’ Performed Shocking Experiments of Slaves, History (Aug. 29, 2017), https://www.history.com/news/the-father-of-modern-gynecology-performed-shocking-experiments-on-slaves; Dan Vergano, Cruel Medical Experiments On Slaves Were Widespread In The American South, BuzzFeed News (Apr. 28,2015), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/cruel-medical-experiments-on-slaves-were-widespread-in-the-a; Kathleen Bachynski, American medicine was built on the backs of slaves. And it still affects how doctors treat patients today, Washington Post (Jun. 4, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/06/04/american-medicine-was-built-on-the-backs-of-slaves-and-it-still-affects-how-doctors-treat-patients-today/; Londa Schiebinger, The hidden stories of medical experimentation on Caribbean slave plantations, The Conversation (Aug. 14, 2017), https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-stories-of-medical-experimentation-on-caribbean-slave-plantations-81600.

[5] Adam H. Laughton, Somewhere to Run, Somewhere to Hide?: International Regulation of Human Subject Experimentation, 18 Duke J. of Comparative and Int’l L. 185-87 (2007), https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=djcil.

[6] Id.

[7] Stephanie Busari and Barbara Wojazer, French doctors' proposal to test Covid-19 treatment in Africa slammed as 'colonial mentality', CNN (Apr. 7, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/africa/french-doctors-africa-covid-19-intl/index.html.

[8] Id.

[9] French doctor apologises for suggesting COVID-19 treatment be tested in Africa, Reuters (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-africa-apology/french-doctor-apologises-for-suggesting-covid-19-treatment-be-tested-in-africa-idUSKBN21L2MS.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.; Busari, supra note 2.

[13] Id.

[14] Reuters, supra note 3.

[15] Id.

[16] Musa Okwonga, The French Doctors who wanted to test vaccines on Africans and Western medicine’s dark history, Quartz Africa (Apr. 10, 2020), https://qz.com/africa/1836272/french-doctors-say-test-covid-19-vaccine-on-africans-spark-fury/.

[17] Id.; Albert P. Sierra, Coronavirus: Eto'o, Drogba fuming at doctors' "racist" and "disgusting" proposal for Africa, as (Apr. 4, 2020), https://en.as.com/en/2020/04/03/football/1585915688_864933.html.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Noor Shakfeh, The Need for a Nuremberg Code for the 21st Century, Scientific American (Nov. 13, 2019), https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-need-for-a-nuremberg-code-for-the-21st-century/.

[21] Laughton, supra note 5, at 191.

[22] Id.

[23] Id. at 200.

[24] Howard Wolinsky, Bioethics for the world, 7 EMBO reports 355 (2006), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1456905/pdf/7400670.pdf.

[25] Id.

[26] Laughton, supra note 5, at 205.

[27] Id. at 202; Wolinsky, supra note 24, at 355.

[28] Nuremberg Code, https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf.

[29] Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

[30] Laughton, supra note 5, at 201.

[31] Wolinsky, supra note 24, at 355.

[32] Laughton, supra note 5, at 202.

[33] Universal Declaration, supra note 29, at Article 22.

[34] Id. Articles 22-24.