No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Enhancing Vulnerable Groups’ Participation in Medicines Risk Regulation: The Case of the European Medicines Agency’s Public Hearing on Quinolone Antibiotics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 March 2023
Abstract
What is the value of including vulnerable people in risk regulation decision-making in the European Union (EU)? This article examines a distinctive approach employed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA): public hearings integrated within safety reviews of medicinal products. The article presents findings from a case study of the EMA’s public hearing on Quinolone antibiotics, which was included by the EMA as part of a review process that led to significant tightening of regulatory restrictions on the prescribing of this class of antibiotics. The article argues that the public hearing enabled a group of patients who had been victims of a debilitating toxicity syndrome associated with Quinolone antibiotics to criticise the existing scientific evidence base around the safety of Quinolone. Deploying the quantitative Discourse Quality Index and an interpretive analytical approach, the article shows how patients challenged the evidence base in a manner that was efficacious in advancing knowledge in this area of risk regulation. When physically staged alongside interventions by professional experts, the article argues that patients facilitated a process of “negotiation” of expertise, leading professional representatives to propose methods of coordination in order to integrate the patients’ qualitative evidence of their suffering with the toxicity syndrome. Ultimately, this process led to the EMA proposing more stringent future guidelines for the prescription of Quinolone antibiotics in the EU.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
1 C Braun and M Busuioc, “Stakeholder engagement as a conduit for regulatory legitimacy?” (2020) 27(11) Journal of European Public Policy 1599–611.
2 S Arras and C Braun, “Stakeholders wanted! Why and how European Union agencies involve non-state stakeholders” (2018) 25(9) Journal of European Public Policy 1257–75.
3 C Koop and M Lodge, “British economic regulators in an age of politicisation: from the responsible to the responsive regulatory state?” (2020) 27(11) Journal of European Public Policy 1612–35.
4 DP Horton and G Lynch-Wood, “Technocracy, the market and the governance of England’s National Health Service” (2020) 14(2) Regulation & Governance 295–315.
5 Y Papadopoulos, “Problems of democratic accountability in network and multilevel governance” (2007) 13(4) European Law Journal 469–86.
6 S Yackee, “Participant voice in the bureaucratic policymaking process” (2015) 25(2) Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 427–49.
7 VA Schmidt, “Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: input, output and ‘throughput’” (2013) 61(1) Political Studies 2–22; ML Flear, “Epistemic Injustice as a Basis for Failure? Health Research Regulation, Technological Risk and the Foundations of Harm and Its Prevention” (2020) 10(4) European Journal of Risk Regulation 693–721.
8 K Wegrich, “The blind spots of collaborative innovation” (2019) 21(1) Public Management Review 12–20.
9 Flear, supra, note 7.
10 R Weymouth and J Hartz-Karp, “Deliberative collaborative governance as a democratic reform to resolve wicked problems and improve trust” (2015) 17(1) Journal of Economic & Social Policy 62–95.
11 I Pérez Durán, “Interest group representation in the formal design of European Union agencies” (2018) 12(2) Regulation & Governance 238–62.
12 M Wood, “Can independent regulatory agencies mend Europe’s democracy? The case of the European Medicines Agency’s public hearing on Valproate” (2022) 24(4) British Journal of Politics and International Relations 607–30.
13 E Krick, “Negotiated expertise in policy-making: how governments use hybrid advisory committees” (2015) 42(4) Science and Public Policy 487–500.
14 J Boswell, “Keeping expertise in its place: understanding arm’s-length bodies as boundary organisations” (2018) 46(3) Policy & Politics 485–501.
15 FW Scharpf, Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2009).
16 Schmidt, supra, note 7.
17 ibid.
18 D Coen and A Katsaitis, “Chameleon pluralism in the EU: an empirical study of the European Commission interest group density and diversity across policy domains” (2013) 20(8) Journal of European Public Policy 1104–19.
19 Arras and Braun, supra, note 2
20 Pérez Durán, supra, note 11.
21 S Arras and J Beyers, “Access to European Union agencies: usual suspects or balanced interest representation in open and closed consultations?” (2020) 58(4) JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 836–55.
22 J Beyers and S Arras, “Who feeds information to regulators? Stakeholder diversity in European Union regulatory agency consultations” (2020) 40(4) Journal of Public Policy 592.
23 E Krick and Å Gornitzka, “Tracing scientisation in the EU Commission’s expert group system” (2020) Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 1–21.
24 M Wood, “Europe’s New Technocracy: Boundaries of Public Participation in EU Institutions” (2021) 59(2) Journal of Common Market Studies 459–73.
25 C Ossege, “Driven by expertise and insulation? The autonomy of European regulatory agencies” (2015) 3(1) Politics and Governance 101–13.
26 L Schrefler and J Pelkmans, “Better use of science for better EU regulation” (2014) 5(3) European Journal of Risk Regulation 314–23, 319.
27 ibid.
28 M Fricker, Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2007).
29 Flear, supra, note 7.
30 ibid, 695, emphasis added.
31 SA Ercan, CM Hendriks and J Boswell, “Studying public deliberation after the systemic turn: the crucial role for interpretive research” (2017) 45(2) Policy & Politics 195–212.
32 E Beauvais, “Deliberation and non-deliberative communication” (2020) 16(1) Journal of Deliberative Democracy 4–13.
33 C Mouffe, “Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?” (1999) 66(3) Social Research 745–58.
34 R Mańko, “Judicial Decision-Making, Ideology and the Political: Towards an Agonistic Theory of Adjudication” (2021) 33 Law and Critique 175–94.
35 K Grönlund, K Herne and M Setälä, “Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions?” (2015) 37(4) Political Behavior 995–1020.
36 Wood, supra, note 12.
37 Art 107j Directive 2001/83/EC.
38 Wood, supra, note 12.
39 MR Steenbergen, A Bächtiger, M Spörndli M et al, “Measuring political deliberation: a Discourse Quality Index” (2003) 1(1) Comparative European Politics 21–48.
40 M King, “A critical assessment of Steenbergen et al’s Discourse Quality Index” (2019) 1(1) Roundhouse: A Journal of Critical Theory and Practice 1–8, 4.
41 M Gerber, A Bächtiger, S Shikano et al, “Deliberative abilities and influence in a transnational deliberative poll (EuroPolis)” (2018) 48(4) British Journal of Political Science 1093–118.
42 ibid.
43 Wood, supra, note 12.
44 M Bevir, “How narratives explain” in D Yanow and P Schwartz-Shea (eds), Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn (New York, M. E. Sharpe) pp 281–90.
45 Krick, supra, note 13; Boswell, supra, note 14.
46 Krick, supra, note 13; E Krick, “The epistemic quality of expertise: contextualized criteria for the multi-source, negotiated policy advice of stakeholder fora” (2018) 12(2) Critical Policy Studies 209–26; E Krick, “Dealing with the epistemic-democratic tension in policy-making. Institutional design choices for multi-layered democratic innovations” (2021) 3(1) Political Research Exchange 1893608.
47 Krick, supra, note 13.
48 ibid.
49 European Medicines Agency, “Public hearing on quinolone and fluoroquinolone medicines: written interventions received from speaker requests” (2018) <https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/public-hearing-quinolone-fluoroquinolone-written-interventions_en.pdf> (last accessed 29 May 2022; (hereinafter “EMA 2018”), 6–7.
50 ibid, 17.
51 ibid, 24.
52 Ibid.
53 Boswell, supra, note 14; RL Korinek and S Veit, “Only good fences keep good neighbours! The institutionalization of ministry–agency relationships at the science–policy nexus in German food safety policy” (2015) 93(1) Public Administration 103–20.
54 Korinek and Veit, supra, note 53.
55 Krick, supra, note 13.
56 EMA 2018, 71.
57 ibid.
58 ibid, 72.
59 Boswell, supra, note 14.
60 EMA 2018, 71.
61 ibid, 71.
62 ibid, 82.
63 ibid, 78.
64 Krick, supra, note 13.
65 EASA, “Carriage of Special Categories of Passengers (SCPs)”, Comment-Response Document 2014-01 (2014) <https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/CRD%202014-01.pdf> (last accessed on 2 August 2022).
66 Schmidt, supra, note 7.