Topoi 38 (2):457-467 (2019)

Nicolas Fillion
Simon Fraser University
Ethically permissible clinical trials must not expose subjects to risks that are unreasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. In the research ethics literature, this moral requirement is typically understood in one of two different ways: as requiring the existence of a state of clinical equipoise, meaning a state of honest, professional disagreement among the community of experts about the preferred treatment; or as requiring an equilibrium between individual and collective ethics. It has been maintained that this second interpretation makes it mandatory to minimize the number of patients receiving the treatment that will eventually be shown to be inferior by the trial. This requirement has led to the development of adaptive trials, i.e., trials in which treatment allocation is determined by data accumulated during interim analysis. Many statisticians argue that in some circumstances—typically with potentially high benefits, as in the much discussed ECMO trial—adaptive design is the only ethically permissible experimental design. Nevertheless, some proponents of clinical equipoise argue that adaptive trials are neither ethically required nor permissible. More specifically, they argue that clinical trials using adaptive designs fail to meet the moral requirement of clinical equipoise, since these trials presuppose an epistemic state that is incompatible with a physician’s duty of care to her subjects. This paper emphasizes that the debate is to a large extent resting on an epistemological confusion. Specifically, I argue that this response conflates two different conceptions of statistical evidence, and that recognizing this distinction elucidates an epistemological framework in which adaptive trials are both consistent with and recommended by the moral requirement of clinical equipoise.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11245-018-9540-x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,078
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Must I Do What I Ought (or Will the Least I Can Do Do)?Paul McNamara - 1996 - In Mark Brown & Jose' Carmo (eds.), Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 154-173.
Rehabilitating Equipoise.Paul B. Miller & Charles Weijer - 2003 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (2):93-118.
Leaving Therapy to Chance.Don Marquis - 1983 - Hastings Center Report 13 (4):40-47.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Clinical Equipoise: Actual or Hypothetical Disagreement?Scott Gelfand - 2013 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (6):590--604.
Uncertainty and the Ethics of Clinical Trials.Sven Ove Hansson - 2006 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (2):149-167.
What Makes Placebo-Controlled Trials Unethical?Franklin G. Miller & Howard Brody - 2002 - American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2):3 – 9.
Clinical Equipoise and the Incoherence of Research Ethics.Franklin G. Miller & Howard Brody - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (2):151 – 165.
Community Equipoise and the Architecture of Clinical Research.Jason H. T. Karlawish & John Lantos - 1997 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (4):385-396.
Community Equipoise and the Architecture of Clinical Research.Jason H. T. Karlawish & John Lantos - 1997 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (4):385-.


Added to PP index

Total views
22 ( #510,380 of 2,498,932 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #421,180 of 2,498,932 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes