This study critically examines the concept of benefit‐sharing in the context of health research involving human participants in South Africa, identifying a significant gap in the precision and application of terminology. It introduces a new terminological framework designed to provide clarity and facilitate standardisation in both national and international discourse on benefit‐sharing. The analysis extends to the complex legal landscape in South Africa, highlighting the nuances of mandated, permitted, and prohibited practices of benefit‐sharing across various statutes. This reveals substantial implications (...) for ethics committees, researchers, and participants, emphasising the need for a legal and ethical recalibration. Furthermore, the manuscript critiques South Africa's main ethics instruments for their inadequate guidance on benefit‐sharing and proposes recommendations for enhancing the Department of Health's ethics guidelines. By advocating for a coherent, legally informed approach to ethical decision‐making, the study underscores the need for integrating the proposed framework and legal insights into ethics guidelines. This comprehensive strategy aims not only to advance ethical practices within South Africa but also to contribute significantly to the global discourse on benefit‐sharing in health research. (shrink)

The practice of coercive measures in psychiatry is controversial. Although some have suggested that it may be acceptable if patients are a danger to others or to themselves, others committed themselves to eliminate it. Ethical, legal and clinical considerations become more complex when the mental incapacity is temporary and when the coercive measures serve to restore autonomy. We discuss these issues, addressing the conflict between autonomy and beneficence/non-maleficence, human dignity, the experiences of patients and the effects of coercive measures. We (...) argue that an appeal to respect autonomy and/or human dignity cannot be a sufficient reason to reject coercive measures. All together, these ethical aspects can be used both to support and to reject a non-seclusion approach. The total lack of controlled trials about the beneficial effects of coercive measures in different populations however, argues against the use of coercive measures. (shrink)

The use of coercive measures in mental health care is an issue of ongoing concern (Cf. Fisher 1994; Janssen et al. 2008; Paterson and Duxbury 2007; Prinsen and Van Delden 2009; Widdershoven and Berghmans 2007; Wynn 2006). On the one hand, coercive interventions seem to infringe the patient’s right to self-determination (principle of autonomy). However, professionals are also committed to providing the care they deem necessary (principle of beneficence). In other words, professionals in mental health care are often caught (...) between the two (opposing) ideals of beneficence and autonomy. In medical practice, the right of self-determination is operationalized in the principle of informed consent. A medical physician is .. (shrink)