The conflict between randomized clinical trials and the therapeutic obligation

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 11 (4):347-366 (1986)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The central dilemma concerning randomized clinical trials (RCTs) arises out of some simple facts about causal methodology (RCTs are the best way to generate the reliable causal knowledge necessary for optimally-informed action) and a prima facie plausible principle concerning how physicians should treat their patients (always do what it is most reasonable to believe will be best for the patient). A number of arguments related to this in the literature are considered. Attempts to avoid the dilemma fail. Appeals to informed consent and mechanisms for minimizing the resulting harm are important for policy, but informed consent is problematic and mechanisms for minimization of harm do not address the dilemma. Appeals to some sort of contract model of justification are promising and illuminating. Keywords: randomized clinical trials, ethics CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,569

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-16

Downloads
43 (#269,595)

6 months
1 (#418,924)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Fred Gifford
Michigan State University

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references