Having represented the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) at the WMA meeting in Helsinki in September 2003, I must take issue with the allegations contained in your editorial and in a report on the debate surrounding paragraph 30 of the Helsinki Declaration.1,2
As I told your reporter, the CMA supports paragraph 30. It is unfortunate for you to suggest that the opponents of paragraph 30 were “abetted” by any silence on the part of the CMA. On the contrary, I personally intervened twice during the formal discussion at the WMA ethics committee in Helsinki to reiterate our support. Moreover, the CMA Secretary General and I intervened frequently and forcefully behind the scenes. That the CMA also supports the necessary efforts of the working group to build consensus behind paragraph 30 should not be misconstrued as weakening our traditional belief in our ethical obligation to help study participants obtain access to a treatment that has been proven beneficial upon completion of a clinical trial.
It is indeed unfortunate that the CMA's record on a matter of such importance has been needlessly called into question. I trust this sets the record straight.
Henry Haddad Past President (2002/03) Canadian Medical Association Ottawa, Ont.
References
- 1.Dismantling the Helsinki Declaration [editorial]. CMAJ 2003;169(10):997. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 2.Helsinki Declaration revisited over concerns about human subjects. CMAJ 2003;169(10): 1066. [PMC free article] [PubMed]