%0 Journal Article
%T Changes to the law on consent in South Africa: implications for school-based adolescent sexual and reproductive health research
%A Melanie Zuch
%A Amanda J Mason-Jones
%A Catherine Mathews
%A Lesley Henley
%J BMC International Health and Human Rights
%D 2012
%I BioMed Central
%R 10.1186/1472-698x-12-3
%X Although well intentioned, the added legal protections in the National Health Act may have the unintended consequence of reducing participation rates in school-based adolescent sexual and reproductive health research, thereby excluding the most at-risk students. The Act may also compromise adolescents' right to dignity and privacy, especially considering the personal nature of research on sex and sexuality. Devolved, discretionary decision-making, which empowers local human research ethics committees to permit a wider range of protective measures, including passive consent, independent adolescent consent or community consultation ought to be considered. The continued and direct involvement of young people in their sexual and reproductive health and well-being is an important principle to uphold.This paper calls for a re-examination of section 71's ethical guidelines relating to informed consent in the National Health Act, No 61, 2003 in South Africa in order to better serve the interests of South African adolescents in sexual and reproductive health research.Protecting the welfare of research participants, particularly vulnerable groups such as adolescents, is of primary importance to any researcher to ensure that research-related harm and exploitation are avoided. However, a recent audit commissioned by the Vulnerable Subjects Working Group of the National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC) found that prior to the implementation of the National Health Act No 61, there was limited specific legal protection for vulnerable research participants in South Africa [1]. Before the implementation of the Act, the legal framework did not specifically address health-related research with adolescents or other vulnerable groups at all, leading research ethics committees to rely on guidance from general principles such as laws relating to the medical treatment of £¿minors'.It would seem then that the National Health Act No 61 of 2003 [2] and its research-specific provisions (s
%U http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-698X/12/3