Over the course of the last four years, chloroquine boosters have been ascending the ladder of promising medical interventions, stoking hope while escalating debates in the realm of public health and bioethics. The drug, primarily known as an antimalarial, gained rapid popularity for its potential effectiveness against the global menace, COVID-19. However, amidst its hurried acceptance and extensive usage, the specter of limited accountability stands as an undeniable concern.
The Support For Chloroquine — Theory Or Hype?
Since its introduction as a probable solution to the COVID-19 pandemic, chloroquine, and its close variant hydroxychloroquine, have been extensively propagated by various groups across the globe. This advocacy stems from in-vitro studies and clinical observations suggesting their potential effectiveness against the virus, coupled with their immunomodulatory properties that could help fight the severe inflammatory response associated with the disease.
Contrarily, skeptics consider this widespread enthusiasm premature and potentially harmful. Citing insufficient scientific evidence and ongoing clinical trials, they voice concerns over the alarming side effects that the drug has been associated with in the past. The bolstering of chloroquine, thus, stands in a pool of debate between its potential benefits and the risks it brings with itself — all while the cloud of limited accountability lingers over its usage.
The Question of Accountability
Accountability, in this context, implies the ethical and legal responsibility of the stakeholders — such as pharmaceutical corporations, healthcare organizations, policymakers, and even the media — in the dispensation and promotion of chloroquine usage.
The current scenario, however, depicts a different picture. The high-speed response to a global crisis has led to swift decisions, where the usual checks and balances have been bypassed. In many countries, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine received emergency use authorizations, bypassing exhaustive clinical trial protocols. While this may have been born out of necessity, it also undeniably reflects a gap in accountability.
The Ethical Dilemma and Legal Ambiguity
The ethical dilemma surrounding chloroquine usage stems from the traditional medical mantra, First, do no harm. Even when benefit-risk calculations justify the use of a medicine, ethical standards require that each patient’s autonomy, benefit, and safety are respected. However, the emergency use of chloroquine, in absence of solid empirical support, might be perceived as placing patients at undue risk.
Legally, the issue is equally murky. The immunity granted
