A Critique of Clinical Equipoise: Therapeutic Misconception in the Ethics of Clinical Trials
A predominant ethical view holds that physician-investigators should conduct their research with therapeutic intent. And since a physician offering a therapy wouldn't prescribe second-rate treatments, the experimental intervention and the best proven therapy should appear equally effective. �...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2003
|
| In: |
The Hastings Center report
Year: 2003, Volume: 33, Issue: 3, Pages: 19-28 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | A predominant ethical view holds that physician-investigators should conduct their research with therapeutic intent. And since a physician offering a therapy wouldn't prescribe second-rate treatments, the experimental intervention and the best proven therapy should appear equally effective. 'Clinical equipoise' is necessary. But this perspective is flawed. The ethics of research and of therapy are fundamentally different, and clinical equipoise should be abandoned. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1552-146X |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hastings Center, The Hastings Center report
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2307/3528434 |
