The principle of clinical equipoise has been variously characterized by ethicists and clinicians as fundamentally flawed, a myth, and even a moral balm. Yet, the principle continues to be treated as the de facto gold standard for conducting randomized control trials in an ethical manner. Why do we hold on to clinical equipoise, despite its shortcomings being widely known and well-advertised? This paper reviews the most important arguments criticizing clinical equipoise as well as what the most prominent proposed alternatives are. (...) In the process, it evaluates the justification for continuing to use clinical equipoise as the gold standard for randomized control trials. (shrink)

The concept of ethical preparedness (EP), defined as a set of practices in genomic medicine aimed not only at efficiently managing sensitive issues in the laboratory but also at ensuring adherence to ethical principles,1 has potential benefits for clinical laboratory scientists, contingent on three key conditions. First, fostering cooperation and mutual support between commercial and non-commercial laboratories in cases involving moral dilemmas or the uncertain nature of variants identified in the laboratory is crucial for establishing the best practices in genomic (...) medicine. Medical codes emphasise regulations aimed at maintaining the authority of colleagues and avoiding patient and family misunderstandings, as well as promoting a culture of mutual trust and support within the medical profession.2 Such practices among laboratories would benefit both patients/clients and scientists. The important thing is to recognise that while laboratory results may possess prospective value for future generations, genomic medicine addresses the clinical needs …. (shrink)