Placebo-controlled surgical trials can provide important information about the efficacy of surgical interventions. However, they are ethically contentious as placebo surgery entails the risk of harms to recipients, such as pain, scarring or anaesthetic misadventure. This has led to claims that placebo-controlled surgical trials are inherently unethical. On the other hand, without placebo-controlled surgical trials, it may be impossible to know whether an apparent benefit from surgery (...) is due to the intervention itself or to the placebo effect. (shrink)

Randomised placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating novel treatments. However, this design is rarely used in the context of orthopaedic interventions where participants are assigned to a real or placebo surgery. The present study examines attitudes towards RPCTs for orthopaedic surgery among 687 orthopaedic surgeons across the USA. When presented with a vignette describing an RPCT for orthopaedic surgery, 52.3% of participants viewed it as ‘completely’ or ‘mostly’ unethical. Participants were also asked to (...) rank-order the value of five different types of evidence supporting the efficacy of a surgery, ranging from RPCT to an anecdotal report. Responses regarding RPCTs were polarised with 26.4% viewing it as the least valuable (even less valuable than an anecdote) and 35.7.% viewing it as the most valuable. Where equipoise exists, if we want to subject orthopaedic surgeries to the highest standard of evidence (RPCTs) before they are implemented in clinical practice, it will be necessary to educate physicians on the value and ethics of placebo surgery control conditions. Otherwise, invasive procedures may be performed without any benefits beyond possible placebo effects. (shrink)

Use of a placebo control in surgical trials is a divisive issue. We argue that, in principle, placebo controls for surgery are necessary in the same way as for medicine. However, there are important differences between these types of trial, which both increase justification and limit application of surgical studies. We propose that surgical randomised placebo-controlled trials are ethical if certain conditions are fulfilled: the presence of equipoise, defined as a lack (...) of unbiased evidence for efficacy of an intervention; clinically important research question; the risk to patients is minimised and reasonable; there is uncertainty about treatment allocation rather than deception; there is preliminary evidence for efficacy, which justifies a placebo-controlled design; and ideally, the placebo procedure should have some direct benefit to the patient, for example, as a diagnostic tool. Placebo-controlled trials in surgery will most often be justified when surgery is performed to improve function or relieve symptoms and when objective outcomes are not available, while the risk of mortality or significant morbidity is low. In line with medical placebo-controlled trials, the surgical trial should be sufficiently powered and standardised so that its results are valid, consent should be valid, the standard treatment or rescue medication should be provided if possible, and after the trial, the patients should be told which treatment they received and there should be provision for post-trial care if the study may result in long-term negative effects. We comment and contrast our guidelines with those of the American Medical Association. (shrink)

Recent debates over the use of sham surgery as a control for studies of fetal tissue transplantation for Parkinson’s disease have focused primarily on rival interpretations of the US federal regulations governing human-subjects research. Using the core ethical and methodological considerations that underwrite the equipoise requirement, we nd strong prima facie reasons against using sham surgery as a control in studies of cellular-based therapies for Parkinson’s disease and more broadly in clinical research. Additionally, we believe that these reasons can be (...) generalized to apply to the use of other placebo controls that carry signi cant risks of positive harms in and of themselves. As a result, our arguments are centrally relevant to the emerging drive to subject therapies with a surgical component to the same rigorous standards of evaluation as those governing the approval of new pharmaceuticals. (shrink)

Randomised clinical trials involve procedures such as randomisation, blinding, and placebo use, which are not part of standard medical care. Patients asked to participate in RCTs often experience difficulties in understanding the meaning of these and their justification.

The application of evidence-based medicine helps clinicians avoid unnecessary procedures and decreases unnecessary harm for future patients while sparing economic burdens. Randomised controlled trials most accurately produce best research evidence. In arthroscopic surgery, however, many procedures have been extensively used without supportive evidence verified with RCTs. In this paper, we introduce two procedures, where over 30 years of procedure usage has continued prior to garnering evidence for the inefficacy of the procedures. The situations are attributed to the fact (...) that clinical trials in arthroscopic surgeries are challenging given the use of placebo controls. A placebo-control RCT can accurately answer research questions about efficacy and safety of surgical procedures; however, the majority of arthroscopic surgeries in practice have not been rigorously tested against placebo surgeries. This is because preparing surgical placebo controls, known as sham surgeries, are ethically controversial. Also considering that high-quality study results often do not change clinical practice due to insufficient knowledge translation, the benefits of such trials may be uncertain to society at large. Additionally, there are a lack of clear guidelines for conducting arthroscopic placebo surgeries in RCTs. We hope that this article helps drive discussion about appropriate use of placebo surgeries in RCTs to produce the best quality evidence in arthroscopic surgery. (shrink)

The maternal‐fetal HIV transmission trials, conducted in developing countries in the 1990s, undoubtedly generated one of the most intense, high profile controversies in international research ethics. They sparked off a prolonged acrimonious and public debate and deeply divided the scientific community. They also provided an impetus for the revision of the Declaration of Helsinki – the most widely known guideline for international research. In this paper, I provide a brief summary of the context, outline the arguments for and against (...) the controversial use of placebo controls, and focus on particular areas that I believe merit further discussion or clarification. On balance, I argue that the researchers failed in their duties to protect the best interests of their research subjects, and to promote distributive justice. I discuss the difficulties of obtaining valid consent in this research context, and argue that it is unethical to inform women of their HIV status without at least offering them prophylactic treatment for their unborn children. A global view of justice, which endorses international equity, cannot be squared with international research guidelines that allow ‘local conditions’ to define the scope of duty to the control group. Finally, I suggest that the heated debate reflects a tension, if not an outright war, between two conflicting meta‐ethical systems, or incommensurable paradigms, that underpin scientific research involving human subjects. (shrink)

The UK Medical Research Council, in order to further its mission of maintaining and improving human health, supports a substantial number of clinical trials on a wide variety of medical questions; some of these trials involve the use of placebos as controls or to maintain blinding. Before providing support, proposed trials are carefully reviewed to assess scientific quality, and to determine whether a placebo is required and is ethical — in addition to ethics review by independent (...) Research Ethics Committees. Some questions such as the choice of placebos in trials in developing countries, in surgical trials and those involving alternative medicine require consideration of additional, specific issues. Involvement of consumers in MRC work has been increasing and includes the establishment of a Consumer Liaison Group; members of this group comment on patient information leaflets for clinical trials, helping to improve patient understanding of trials and ensuring topics like placebo use are explained clearly. Views differ on the value of placebos in clinical care and on their mechanism of action; continuing research is helping to clarify the issues. (shrink)

The last two decades have witnessed intense debate over the ethical legitimacy of placebo controlled trials. Most of the arguments for and against the use of PCTs turn on one of the following issues: the compatibility of the obligations of clinicians and researchers with PCTs, the scientific merit of PCTs, and the influence of patients' and subjects' perceptions, ability to consent, expectations, and rights on the permissibility of PCTs. I introduce each of these categories and assess the (...) principal arguments in each group. I argue that, although some of the arguments against PCTs have limitations, they do inform the debate in significant ways by pointing to important constraints on PCTs. Those concerning patients' and subjects' perceptions, capacity to consent, expectations, and rights are particularly instructive. They do not, for the most part, sustain an absolute prohibition of PCTs, but they do suggest types of PCTs that are inappropriate and they indicate issues that must be addressed when PCTs are conducted. I argue that we should look to the reasonableness and permissibility of informed refusals of care to evaluate the extent to which a trial is a legitimate PCT ; to determine which potential subjects should be considered eligible to enroll in a PCT ; and to inform the language that should be used in describing the study as part of the informed consent process. (shrink)

The current controversy as to the proper role of the placebo control in the evaluation of new treatments for schizophrenia requires an analysis that is sensitive to both ethical and scientific issues. Clinical equipoise, widely regarded as the moral foundation of the randomized controlled trial (RCT), requires the use of best available treatment as the control in RCT. Scientific criticisms of the use of an active control are examined and none present an insuperable barrier to the use of (...) an active control. Indeed, scrutiny of the most recent argument for the use of placebo controls, 'assay sensitivity', suggests that the use of placebo may be the cause of the problem pointed to. Scientific, regulatory, ethical and legal advantages of the use of an active control are described. While the use of a placebo control may be acceptable in carefully defined circumstances, in most cases the use of an active control in schizophrenia research is ethically and scientifically preferable. (shrink)

The leading ethical position on placebo-controlled clinical trials is that whenever proven effective treatment exists for a given condition, it is unethical to test a new treatment for that condition against placebo. Invoking the principle of clinical equipoise, opponents of placebo-controlled trials in the face of proven effective treatment argue that they (1) violate the therapeutic obligation of physicians to offer optimal medical care and (2) lack both scientific and clinical merit. We contend (...) that both of these arguments are mistaken. Clinical equipoise provides erroneous ethical guidance in the case of placebo-controlled trials, because it ignores the ethically relevant distinction between clinical trials and treatment in the context of clinical medicine and the methodological limitations of active-controlled trials. Placebo controls are ethically justifiable when they are supported by sound methodological considerations and their use does not expose research participants to excessive risks of harm. (shrink)

This paper considers the ethics of placebo‐controlled trials in developing countries, where a treatment already exists but is not available due to the low local standard of care. Such trials would not be permitted in more developed nations where a higher standard of care is available. I argue that there are moral intuitions against such trials, but a further intuition that if the trials were aimed at producing treatment options for the developing world, that (...) would be more permissible than if the trials were designed with the benefit of rich world people in mind. An approach based upon GA Cohen's work on interpersonal justifiability is suggested to allow us to explain these intuitions. Cohen's framework shows that these trials are ethically problematic because the inequality in healthcare provision between developing and developed nations that allows them to take place is at least partly the pharmaceutical corporations’ fault. Following Cohen's argument, this means the trials are non‐comprehensively justified. This allows for a more complete explanation of our intuitions than to consider such trials as cases of exploitation, because intuitions on the ethicacy of research can vary even when the exploitation relation remains the same. It is then established that there is good empirical evidence to believe that pharmaceutical corporations do fail the interpersonal justifiability test. The policy implications of this judgement are then considered, and it is suggested that the framework might be equally applicable to examining the permissibility of research conducted on vulnerable people within more developed nations. (shrink)

The use of placebo controls in clinical trials remains controversial. Ethical analysis and international ethical guidance permit the use of placebo controls in randomized trials when scientifically indicated in four cases: (1) when there is no proven effective treatment for the condition under study; (2) when withholding treatment poses negligible risks to participants; (3) when there are compelling methodological reasons for using placebo, and withholding treatment does not pose a risk of serious harm to participants; (...) and, more controversially, (4) when there are compelling methodological reasons for using placebo, and the research is intended to develop interventions that can be implemented in the population from which trial participants are drawn, and the trial does not require participants to forgo treatment they would otherwise receive. The concept of methodological reasons is essential to assessing the ethics of placebo controls in these controversial last two cases. This article sets out key considerations relevant to considering whether methodological reasons for a placebo control are compelling. (shrink)

Surgical advances can provide great benefits to patients but can come at a cost. The successes are often matched by failures that cause harm to patients. The risks of surgery create a strong ethical imperative for research to establish the safety and efficacy of new treatments. Surgical research is, however, challenging for a number of reasons including the lack of a clear boundary between variations in practice, innovation and research, its irreversible nature, the difficulty of performing placebo- (...) class='Hi'>controlled randomised trials, confounding factors such as surgeon learning curves and conflicts of interest. In this chapter the ethical issues raised by surgical innovation are explored with the use of a case study based on the uptake of vaginal mesh to treat vaginal prolapse to highlight these issues (Sects. 12.1 and 12.2). In Sect. 12.3 the argument for the value of a structured approach to introducing innovations, such as that developed by the IDEAL Collaboration, which clarifies both ethical and methodological issues at each stage of research is proposed. This chapter recognises that ethical challenges extend beyond adequate ethical evaluation of the innovation in the care of individual patients to include broader issues such as justice in access to any new interventions. (shrink)

In October 2013, the Declaration of Helsinki was revised a seventh time in its 50 year history. While it is the most widely accepted set of ethical principles for the protection of patients participating in medical research, the Declaration of Helsinki has also been subject of constant controversy. In particular, its paragraph on the use of placebo controls in clinical trials divides the research community into active-control and placebo orthodox proponents, both continuously demanding revisions of the Declaration (...) of Helsinki in favour of their position. The goal of the present project is to compare the mainly theoretical controversy with regulatory implementation. We distributed a questionnaire to national drug regulatory authorities from different countries to collect information on the authorities’ respective approaches to interpretation and implementation of the Declarations’ placebo paragraph in the conduct of medical research. Our findings suggest that the majority of drug regulatory authorities have established a practice of a middle ground, allowing placebo controls in some instances. Various interpretations of “serious harm” and “methodological reasons” are proposed as well as safeguards to avoid abuse of the option to use placebo-controls. Leaving the placebo paragraph open to various interpretation is a result of the Declaration of Helsinki’s character as a guidance document. With the current version controversy will continue. The Declaration should be continued to be strengthened to enforce the appreciation of conducting medical research with the highest ethical standard. (shrink)

The principle of clinical equipoise requires that, aside from certain exceptional cases, second generation treatments ought to be tested against standard therapy. In violation of this principle, placebo-controlled trials (PCTs) continue to be used extensively in the development and licensure of second-generation treatments. This practice is typically justified by appeal to methodological arguments that purport to demonstrate that active-controlled trials (ACTs) are methodologically flawed. Foremost among these arguments is the so called assay sensitivity argument. In (...) this paper, I take a closer look at this argument. Following Duhem, I argue that all trials, placebo-controlled or not, rely on external information for their meaningful interpretation. Pending non-circular empirical evidence that we can trust the findings of PCTs to a greater degree than the findings of ACTs, I conclude that the assay sensitivity argument fails to demonstrate that placebo-controlled trials are preferable, methodologically or otherwise, to active-controlled trials. Contrary to the intentions of its authors, the fundamental lesson taught by the assay sensitivity argument is Duhemian: the validity of all clinical trials depends on external information. (shrink)

Placebo-trials on HIV-infected pregnant women in developing countries like Thailand and Uganda have provoked recent controversy. Such experiments aim to find a treatment that will cut the rate of vertical transmission more efficiently than existing treatments like zidovudine. This scenario is first stated as generally as possible, before three ethical principles found in the Belmont Report, itself a sharpening of the Helsinki Declaration, are stated. These three principles are the Principle of Utility, the Principle of Autonomy and the (...) Principle of Justice. These are taken as voices of moral imperative. But although each has intuitive appeal, it can be shown that there are possible scenarios in which they give conflicting prescriptions. To achieve consistency, one must be subordinate to the others. The voice of utility is taken as subordinate to those of justice and autonomy and it is shown that given plausible assumptions about the level of poverty and education in the developing country targeted, the experiment is ruled morally wrong in the name of both justice and autonomy. Moreover, it is argued that no justification can be found for the inclusion of a placebo group, when strictly defined. By contrast, a ‘no- treatment’ control arm might be justified, but only when the demands of autonomy are satisfied, demands that are more stringent than they might appear. A utilitarian defence of the experiment is examined, namely that the would-be participants are in a no-loss situation, and it is shown that this defence is seriously flawed. Finally, it is concluded that there is no justification for amending the Declaration of Helsinki. (shrink)

In this issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics Peter Clark provides a comprehensive and sound ethical analysis of clinical trials examining the treatment of advanced Parkinson's disease with fetal tissue transplantation. These studies raise profound questions about how clinical trials of surgical interventions ought to be conducted. At stake is not only the ethical basis of such trials, but differing views as to the proper role of science in medicine and its limitations.Experience with (...) the broader debate on the ethical permissibility of placebo controls has taught us that the choice of control treatment is an aspect of trial design in which ethical and scientific issues overlap. Accordingly, I will highlight, and perhaps expand upon, three issues raised by Clark: What scientific questions ought clinical trials of surgical interventions ask? How should the ethical analysis of risk for such trials be conceived? And, are surgical patients a vulnerable population? (shrink)

In this issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics Peter Clark provides a comprehensive and sound ethical analysis of clinical trials examining the treatment of advanced Parkinson's disease with fetal tissue transplantation. These studies raise profound questions about how clinical trials of surgical interventions ought to be conducted. At stake is not only the ethical basis of such trials, but differing views as to the proper role of science in medicine and its limitations.Experience with (...) the broader debate on the ethical permissibility of placebo controls has taught us that the choice of control treatment is an aspect of trial design in which ethical and scientific issues overlap. Accordingly, I will highlight, and perhaps expand upon, three issues raised by Clark: What scientific questions ought clinical trials of surgical interventions ask? How should the ethical analysis of risk for such trials be conceived? And, are surgical patients a vulnerable population? (shrink)

The use of placebo controls in surgical research, or ‘sham surgery’ as it sometimes described, raises a number of ethical issues. Despite such issues, sham surgery is presently being employed, albeit very rarely, in surgical research. In this paper, the ethical implications of such control groups are discussed in the context of research into various conditions, including Parkinson's Disease and arthritis. Conflicting ethical considerations include: i) patients' best interests in relation to the harms and risks involved; ii) (...) the need for more rigorous methods in surgical research, and iii) the question of patient autonomy. Contextual features which may influence the ethical acceptability of a specific sham-controlled surgical trial are discussed. (shrink)

American orthodox medicine consolidated its professional authority in the early 20th Century on the basis of its unbiased scientific method. The centerpiece of such a method is a strategy for identifying truly effective new therapies, i.e., the randomized clinical trial (RCT). A crucial component of the RCT in illnesses without established treatment is the placebo control. Placebo effects must be identified and distinguished from pharmacological effects because placebos produce actual but unexplained therapeutic successes. The blinding necessary for a (...) proper placebo-controlled RCT therefore introduces an epistemic bias into orthodox medicine: therapeutic successes that rely upon a direct link between knowing and healing, such as placebo effects, are discarded in favor of therapeutic successes that rely upon an indirect link between knowing and healing, such as pharmacological interventions. Where the capacity to produce therapeutic results once validated the method of clinical medical science, now method validates results. The clinical consequences of this method of testing therapies include a diminished vision of the therapeutic potential of the doctor-patient relationship and of the potential human resources available for healing. Keywords: doctor-patient relationship, epistemology, placebo effect, professionalization, randomized clinical trials CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

There has been considerable debate about the ethical acceptability of using placebo-controls in clinical research. Although this debate has been rich in rhetoric, considering that much of this research is predicated upon the assumption that data from this research is vital to clinical decision-making, it is ironic that researchers have introduced little data into these discussions. Using some published research concerning the use of placebo-controls in clinical research in hypertension and psychiatric drug trials, I suggest some ways (...) that such data might be incorporated into the ethical analysis concerning placebo use in clinical trials. This approach promises to be important for enhancing conceptual and scientific understanding as well as public policy decision-making. (shrink)

The use of placebo as a control condition in clinical trials of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders continues to be an area of ethical concern. Typically, opponents of placebo controls argue that they violate the beneficent-based, “best proven diagnostic and therapeutic method” that the original Helsinki Declaration of 1964 famously asserted participants are owed. A more consequentialist, oppositional argument is that participants receiving placebo might suffer enormously by being deprived of their usual medication(s). Nevertheless, recent (...) findings of potential for suicidality in young people treated with antidepressants, along with meta-analyses suggesting that antidepressants add no significant clinical benefit over placebos, warrant a re-evaluation of the arguments against placebo. Furthermore, the nature of placebo treatment in short-term clinical trials is often not well understood, and lack of understanding can foster opposition to it. This paper will show how scientific justifications for placebo use are morally relevant. The fundamental ethical importance of placebo controls is discussed in relation to several aspects of clinical trials, including detection of adverse events, accurate assessment of clinical benefit, advancing understanding of the heterogeneity of depression and anxiety disorders and respecting informed consent requirements. Prohibiting the use of placebo controls is morally concerning in that such prohibitions allow for the possibility of serious adverse public health consequences. Moral worries that research participants receiving placebo are being unduly jeopardised will be shown to be exaggerated, especially in relation to the net benefits for end-users to be gained from the quality of data resulting from using placebo controls. (shrink)

This article analyzes the bioethical implications of using a control/placebo group when conducting clinical trials (CTs) investigating the treatment of periodontitis. For this, the deductive method was used, proposing the interrelation of values, and a scoping systematic review was carried out. A total of 53% of the CTs reviewed were performed in low- and middle-income (LMI) countries, and 92% used a control/placebo group as a comparison group. Although there is a gold standard for the adjunctive treatment of (...) periodontitis, the research ethics committees of most of the analyzed studies approved the use of control/placebo groups for the performance of CTs that did not explore new therapeutic alternatives. In some cases, the CT protocols were not approved by ethics committees, nor was informed consent used. In the LMI countries, a shorter period of recruitment was observed for patients who attended universities and public hospitals. Likewise, most of the CTs reviewed had public funding, a significant amount of which came from the pharmaceutical industry. Only one CT reported the low economic and educational level of its participants. Furthermore, none of the authors of the reviewed CTs declared conflicts of interest. Although the axiology of techno-science always takes into account at least the epistemic, technical and economic value systems, the hegemony of the economic values imposed by the pharmaceutical industry is evident in the performance of CTs investigating the treatment of periodontitis in LMI countries. (shrink)

This article analyzes the bioethical implications of using a control/placebo group when conducting clinical trials (CTs) investigating the treatment of periodontitis. For this, the deductive method was used, proposing the interrelation of values, and a scoping systematic review was carried out. A total of 53% of the CTs reviewed were performed in low- and middle-income (LMI) countries, and 92% used a control/placebo group as a comparison group. Although there is a gold standard for the adjunctive treatment of (...) periodontitis, the research ethics committees of most of the analyzed studies approved the use of control/placebo groups for the performance of CTs that did not explore new therapeutic alternatives. In some cases, the CT protocols were not approved by ethics committees, nor was informed consent used. In the LMI countries, a shorter period of recruitment was observed for patients who attended universities and public hospitals. Likewise, most of the CTs reviewed had public funding, a significant amount of which came from the pharmaceutical industry. Only one CT reported the low economic and educational level of its participants. Furthermore, none of the authors of the reviewed CTs declared conflicts of interest. Although the axiology of techno-science always takes into account at least the epistemic, technical and economic value systems, the hegemony of the economic values imposed by the pharmaceutical industry is evident in the performance of CTs investigating the treatment of periodontitis in LMI countries. (shrink)

This article analyzes the bioethical implications of using a control/placebo group when conducting clinical trials (CTs) investigating the treatment of periodontitis. For this, the deductive method was used, proposing the interrelation of values, and a scoping systematic review was carried out. A total of 53% of the CTs reviewed were performed in low- and middle-income (LMI) countries, and 92% used a control/placebo group as a comparison group. Although there is a gold standard for the adjunctive treatment of (...) periodontitis, the research ethics committees of most of the analyzed studies approved the use of control/placebo groups for the performance of CTs that did not explore new therapeutic alternatives. In some cases, the CT protocols were not approved by ethics committees, nor was informed consent used. In the LMI countries, a shorter period of recruitment was observed for patients who attended universities and public hospitals. Likewise, most of the CTs reviewed had public funding, a significant amount of which came from the pharmaceutical industry. Only one CT reported the low economic and educational level of its participants. Furthermore, none of the authors of the reviewed CTs declared conflicts of interest. Although the axiology of techno-science always takes into account at least the epistemic, technical and economic value systems, the hegemony of the economic values imposed by the pharmaceutical industry is evident in the performance of CTs investigating the treatment of periodontitis in LMI countries. (shrink)

This article analyzes the bioethical implications of using a control/placebo group when conducting clinical trials (CTs) investigating the treatment of periodontitis. For this, the deductive method was used, proposing the interrelation of values, and a scoping systematic review was carried out. A total of 53% of the CTs reviewed were performed in low- and middle-income (LMI) countries, and 92% used a control/placebo group as a comparison group. Although there is a gold standard for the adjunctive treatment of (...) periodontitis, the research ethics committees of most of the analyzed studies approved the use of control/placebo groups for the performance of CTs that did not explore new therapeutic alternatives. In some cases, the CT protocols were not approved by ethics committees, nor was informed consent used. In the LMI countries, a shorter period of recruitment was observed for patients who attended universities and public hospitals. Likewise, most of the CTs reviewed had public funding, a significant amount of which came from the pharmaceutical industry. Only one CT reported the low economic and educational level of its participants. Furthermore, none of the authors of the reviewed CTs declared conflicts of interest. Although the axiology of techno-science always takes into account at least the epistemic, technical and economic value systems, the hegemony of the economic values imposed by the pharmaceutical industry is evident in the performance of CTs investigating the treatment of periodontitis in LMI countries. (shrink)

The expert clinical community is split about whether the difference between antidepressant treatment and treatment with placebos stems from the efficacy of the drug or from subjects’ heightened expectancy enhanced by side effects—i.e., enhanced placebo effects. Proving whether pharmacological efficacy has been established reliably by randomized controlled trials of antidepressant drugs is difficult, primarily because substituting a placebo for an effective treatment in the control arm of a trial is ethically questionable. I argue that clinical equipoise (...) permits the use of active placebo controls in trials that test antidepressants. Placebo controls for drug trials are ethically defensible and scientifically justified when we have evidence that a standard treatment might only work because of enhanced placebo effects, and when a respectable minority of the expert clinical community endorses these concerns. (shrink)

According to Howick (2009a), the three main reasons for believing that placebo-controlled trials (PCTs) are methodologically superior to active-controlled trials (ACTs)—sensitivity, absolute effect...

Some authors argue that the ethics of medical care and the ethics of research differ, and that it is a mistake to conflate the two. They propose “that medical research and medical treatment are two distinct forms of activities, governed by different ethical principles.” This raises the question of whether physicians who are also clinical investigators may separate their role as physician from that of researcher when they are involved in clinical trials, thereby avoiding the obligations required in the (...) physician-patient relationship. Miller and Brody suggest that medical training is to blame for what they believe is the physicians’ tendency to confound the obligations of research and practice. “Physician-investigators, after all, went to medical school” they explain. They believe that considering research with patients outside the ethical framework of the physician-patient relationship may be “difficult and threatening” to physicians who have “psychological needs” to consider the ethical obligations flowing from their relationship with their patients. (shrink)