Störerabwehr durch Ethik-Kommissionen? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Ablehnung unzuverlässiger Prüfärzte bei klinischen Prüfungen
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE
Style
Format
Störerabwehr durch Ethik-Kommissionen? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Ablehnung unzuverlässiger Prüfärzte bei klinischen Prüfungen
von Kielmansegg, Sebastian Graf
Die Verwaltung, Vol. 43 (2010), Iss. 2 : pp. 195–216
Additional Information
Article Details
Pricing
Author Details
1Dr. Sebastian Graf von Kielmansegg, Lehrstuhl für deutsches und ausländisches öffentliches Recht, Völkerrecht und Europarecht, Universität Mannheim, Schloß Westflügel, 68131 Mannheim.
Abstract
Biomedical research involving human beings is a practice regulated by law and subject to a preventive control mechanism. As part of this mechanism, each clinical trial and each principal investigator (
One of the legal problems arising in this context is how to deal with principal investigators who have violated the relevant legal rules on good clinical practice, e.g. by manipulating trial data. Does an ethics committee have the right (or even the duty) to object to a principal investigator because of such violations in earlier clinical trials, or to withdraw its favourable opinion because of violations in the course of an ongoing trial? Under German statutory law, an ethics committee is required only to consider the principal investigator's professional “qualification“ but not his “reliability“. Nevertheless, the principal investigator's readiness to comply with the rules on good clinical practice is legally relevant because the ethics committee can deny a favourable opinion when the legal requirements are in danger of not being fulfilled. Such danger can be assumed if there are serious, fact-based doubts about the principal investigator's readiness to comply with these requirements. Such doubts, in turn, can be based upon former violations while conducting clinical trials; in other words, former violations
Finally, even if these conditions are fulfilled, the principle of proportionality has to be respected; in particular, the principal investigator may only be rejected if it seems