ArticleMonash bioethics review2024
Environmental risk and market approval for human pharmaceuticals.
Article in Monash bioethics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental Risk Assessment in Pharmaceutical Regulation: A Comparative Review of EMA, U.S. FDA and CDSCO Guidelines.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Review
- Ecopharmacovigilance and Drug Disposal: A Survey of Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices Among Veterinary Healthcare Providers in and Around Gondar City, Ethiopia.Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Article
- Breaking Lock-ins to Enable a Green Pharmacy.Environmental science & technology · 2026Review
- The 3D Value Framework for Sustainable Access to Effective Antibiotics.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025Article
- Stewardship and social justice: implications of using the precautionary principle to justify burdensome antimicrobial stewardship measures.Monash bioethics review · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
This paper contributes to the growing discussion about how to mitigate pharmaceutical pollution, which is a threat to human, animal, and environmental health as well as a potential driver of antimicrobial resistance. It identifies market approval of pharmaceuticals as one of the most powerful ways to shape producer behavior and highlights that applying this tool raises ethical issues given that it might impact patients' access to medicines. The paper identifies seven different policy options that progressively give environmental considerations increased priority in the approval process, identifies ethically relevant interests affected by such policies, and makes explicit tensions and necessary tradeoffs between these interests. While arguing that the current European regulation gives insufficient weight to environmental considerations, the paper highlights concerns with the strongest policy options, on the grounds that these may very well endanger patients' access to effective medication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.