Abstract

Lantos and Feudtner argue that SUPPORT was an instance of CER and that CER differs from research involving unproven, experimental therapies because it exposes research subjects to the same risks patients regularly face in clinical practice. Like many defenders of SUPPORT, they formally acknowledge the study as research but want it to be thought of as clinical care. They develop an appealing argument, but it is misleading. Whatever doctors might have done in clinical practice, their choice of target range within the study and for study participants was influenced by research aims. Just as in research involving unproven, experimental therapies, the care of patients in SUPPORT was altered for the goal of obtaining knowledge to help future patients.