Abstract
In their paper, “Behavioral Equipoise: A Way to Resolve
Ethical Stalemates in Clinical Research, “ Peter Ubel and
Robert Silbergleit (2011)
propose that we adopt another principle, the principle
of behavioral equipoise, whereby RCTs are also morally justified
in cases where they are expected to address the controversy,
disagreement, or behavioral resistance surrounding a
particular treatment. Adopting this ethical standard would
allow for research to move forward and, as a result, for
the resolution of stalemates between clinicians who hold
opposing views.
There are two points that I would like to make in terms
of objections to Ubel and Silbergleit’s argument, and then
I want to emphasize what I think is particularly valuable
about their argument. First, I dispute the move from the
claim that the principle of clinical equipoise creates (or
does not resolve) stalemates to the conclusion that adopting the principle of behavioral equipoise would dissolve stalemates. My second objection concerns the distinctness of the
concept of behavioral equipoise fromthe concept of clinical
equipoise. That said, I do think that Ubel and Silbergleit make an
important point, and that is that one cause of equipoise is the
behavioral and psychological factors of those responding to
data.