Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Response to article titled "US-funded measurements of cervical cancer death rates in India: scientific and ethical concerns" by Eric J Suba

In Indian Journal of Medical Ethics
Contributor(s): Kane SV | Jayant K | Hingmire S | Kelkar R | Desai S | Malvi SG | Swaminathan R | Muwonge R | Rajkumar R | Shastri S | Nene BM | SankarR@iarc.fr | Sankaranarayanan R.
Material type: materialTypeLabelArticleSeries: Issues.Publisher: 2014Subject(s): India | Mortality | Cervical cancer | DDC classification: In: Indian Journal of Medical EthicsSummary: Dr Eric Suba has been distorting facts and persistently disseminating biased and misleading views and statements regarding our studies over the past several years. His article in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics fails to mention the facts that seem unfavourable to his arguments, and the ethical concerns are unsubstantiated by the evidence. In this context, we present the following clarifications for the attention of your readers, notably with regard to: (i) the study design and inclusion of a control group; (ii) the informed consent of the women participating in the study; (iii) the conformity with international ethical standards and guidelines, and (iv) the provision of screening to women in the control arm of the studies. We also highlight the benefits that are flowing from this research and the risk that misinformation may further delay access for women to life-saving cervical cancer screening.
Tags from this library: No tags from this library for this title. Add tag(s)
Log in to add tags.
    average rating: 0.0 (0 votes)
Item type Current location Call number Status Date due Barcode
Articles Articles Tata Memorial Hospital
Available AR15314

Dr Eric Suba has been distorting facts and persistently disseminating biased and misleading views and statements regarding our studies over the past several years. His article in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics fails to mention the facts that seem unfavourable to his arguments, and the ethical concerns are unsubstantiated by the evidence. In this context, we present the following clarifications for the attention of your readers, notably with regard to: (i) the study design and inclusion of a control group; (ii) the informed consent of the women participating in the study; (iii) the conformity with international ethical standards and guidelines, and (iv) the provision of screening to women in the control arm of the studies. We also highlight the benefits that are flowing from this research and the risk that misinformation may further delay access for women to life-saving cervical cancer screening.

There are no comments for this item.

Log in to your account to post a comment.

Powered by Koha