A Desperate Solution: Individual Autonomy and the Double-Blind Controlled Experiment

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):57-64 (1995)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The randomization ingredient in double-blind controlled experiments may be objectionable to patients who, in their desperation, come to such trials seeking a last chance of cure. Minogue et al., who view such a situation as inherently exploitive and undermining of patient autonomy, propose that such “desperate volunteers” instead be enrolled in the active arm, while other patients, less desperate and more committed to medical progress, continue to be randomized. Their view is critiqued as destructive of medical progress, inappropriate in its lack of clinical response to such patients, and fatally flawed by unrealistic notions of autonomy and voluntariness

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Problems with autonomy.Beate Rössler - 2002 - Hypatia 17 (4):143-162.
Multicultural Education as Fostering Individual Autonomy.Michele S. Moses - 1997 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 16 (4):373-388.
The Inaugural Address: Autonomy: The Emperor's New Clothes.Onora O'Neill - 2003 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 77 (1):1 - 21.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
16 (#774,541)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?