Bladt, T.M., Vorup-Jensen, T., Sædder, E. A., and Ebbesen, M. “Empirical Investigation of Ethical Challenges Related to the Use of Biological Therapies,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 48, no. 3 (2020): 567–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

These are respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice. See Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F., Principles of Biomedical Ethics 7th ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), part II.Google Scholar

Diaz, J.I., “How Will COVID-19 Impact Biosimilar Trends In The Top 5 European Markets?” Biosimilar Development (May 5, 2020), available at <https://www.biosimilardevelopment.com/doc/how-will-covid-impact-biosimilar-trends-in-thetop-european-markets-0001> (last visited August 17, 2020).+(last+visited+August+17,+2020).>Google Scholar

Boyd, K.M. and Potter, B.T., “Priorities in the Allocation of Scarce Resources,” Journal of Medical Ethics 12, no. 4 (1986): 197–200, doi:10.1136/jme.12.4.197; P.E. Liss, “Allocation of Scarce Resources in Health Care: Values and Concepts,” Texto & Contexto — Enfermagem 15 (2006): 125-134, doi: 10.1590/ S0104-07072006000500014; G. Curigliano, M.J. Cardoso, P. Poortmans, et al., “Recommendations for Triage, Prioritization and Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Breast 52, no. 8 (2020), doi:10.1016/j.breast.2020.04.00.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Persad, G., Wertheimer, A. and Emanuel, E. J., “Principles for Allocation of Scare Medical Interventions,” Lancet 373, no. 9661 (2009): 423–431, at 423, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60137-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ebbesen, M. and Pedersen, B.D., “Empirical Investigation of the Ethical Reasoning of Physicians and Molecular Biologists—the Importance of the Four Principles of Biomedical Ethics,” Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2, no. 23 (2007): 1–16, doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-2-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See in particular J.D. Rendtorff and P. Kemp, Basic Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw—Volume 1: Autonomy, Dignity, Integrity and Vulnerability, Report to the European Commission of the BIOMED-II Project, (Etik & Ret, 2000).Google Scholar

CESCR General Comment No. 14: “The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health,” 11 August 2000 (in Document E/C.12/2000/4).Google Scholar

See the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, 4 April 1997, ratified by Denmark in 1999. See also the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 16 December 1966, ratified by Denmark in 1972 (Art. 12 on the right to health etc). Among treaties related to vulnerable persons, see Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989, ratified by Denmark in 1991 or Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 13 December 2006, ratified by Denmark in 2009.Google Scholar

See CESCR General Comment No. 14: “The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health,” 11 August 2000, Id. See also the case Pentiacova from the European Court of Human Rights, in which the Court found inadmissible the applications of several persons who claimed that the absence of reimbursement of hemodialysis breached their right to life and their right to private life. Pentiaova and others v. Moldada, App. N°14462/03 (2005).Google Scholar

Charles Gard and others v. UK, App n° 39793/17 (2017), at the core of this case, the interpretation of the “best interest of the child”. Prior decisions of the Court: see Hristozov and others v. Bulgaria, App. Nos. 47039/11 and 358/12 (2012) and Durisotto v. Italy, App. n° 62804/13 (2014). The applications were found inadmissible.Google Scholar

Truog, R.D., “The United Kingdom Sets Limits on Experimental Treatments: The Case of Charlie Gard,” JAMA 318, no. 11 (2017): 1001–1002, doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.10410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tsiftsoglou, A.S., Ruiz, S., and Schneider, C.K.. “Development and Regulation of Biosimilars: Current Status and Future Challenges,” BioDrugs 27, no. 3 (2013): 203–211, doi: 10.1007/s40259-013-0020-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

IQVIA. “The Impact of Biosimilar Competition in Europe,” (Oct, 2019), available at <https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/31642/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native> (last visited August 17, 2020).+(last+visited+August+17,+2020).>Google Scholar

IQVIA, D. Long, Vice President, Industry Relations, “Global /US Generics and Biosimilars: Trends, Issues and Outlook,” (February 5, 2019), available at <https://www.accessiblemeds.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/Doug-Long-Access2019.pdf> (last visited August 17, 2020)+(last+visited+August+17,+2020)>Google Scholar

K. Sarnola, M. Merikoski, J. Jyrkkä, and K. Hämeen-Anttila, “Physicians’ Perceptions of the Uptake of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review,” British Medical Journal Open 10 (2020): e034183, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

C. Gastieger, A.S.K. Jones, M. Kleinstäuber, et al., “The Effects of Message Framing on Patients’ Perceptions and Willingness to Change to a Biosimilar in a Hypothetical Drug Switch,” Arthritis Care Research (2019), doi: 10.1002/acr.24012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar