Among medical researchers and clinicians the dominant view is that it is unethical to deceive patients by prescribing a placebo. This opinion is formalized in a recent policy issued by the American Medical Association (AMA [Chicago, IL]). Although placebos can be shown to be always safe, often effective, and sometimes necessary, doctors are now effectively prohibited from using them in clinical practice. I argue that the deceptive administration of placebos is not subject to the same moral objections that face other (...) forms of deception in clinical practice and medical research. Although deception is normally objectionable on the grounds that it limits autonomy and breaches trust, these grounds do not apply to placebos when they are prescribed within appropriate ethical limits. Patients have reason to prefer that doctors can prescribe placebos in ethically responsible ways. Hence, the AMA has an obligation to endorse and to promote the responsible use of deceptive placebos in clinical practice. (shrink)

Physicians commonly recommend ?placebo treatments?, which are not believed to have specific efficacy for the patient's condition. Motivations for placebo treatments include complying with patient expectations and promoting a placebo effect. In this article, we focus on two key empirical questions that must be addressed in order to assess the ethical legitimacy of placebo treatments in clinical practice: 1) do placebo treatments have the potential to produce clinically significant benefit? and 2) can placebo treatments be effective in promoting a therapeutic (...) placebo response without the use of deception? We examine evidence from clinical trials and laboratory experiments bearing on these two questions. The conclusion is reached that based on currently available evidence, it is premature to judge whether placebo treatments are ethically justifiable, with the possible exception of acupuncture for pain relief. (shrink)

The proposed practice of "evidence-based medicine," which calls for careful clinical judgment in evaluating the "best available evidence," should be differentiated from the special collection of data regarded as suitable evidence. Although the proposed practice does not seem new, the new collection of "best available" information has major constraints for the care of individual patients. Derived almost exclusively from randomized trials and meta-analyses, the data do not include many types of treatments or patients seen in clinical practice; and the results (...) show comparative efficacy of treatment for an "average" randomized patient, not for pertinent subgroups formed by such cogent clinical features as severity of symptoms, illness, co-morbidity, and other clinical nuances. The intention-to-treat analyses do not reflect important post-randomization events leading to altered treatment; and the results seldom provide suitable background data when therapy is given prophylactically rather than remedially, or when therapeutic advantages are equivocal. Randomized trial information is also seldom available for issues in etiology, diagnosis, and prognosis, and for clinical decisions that depend on pathophysiologic changes, psychosocial factors and support, personal preferences of patients, and strategies for giving comfort and reassurance. The laudable goal of making clinical decisions based on evidence can be impaired by the restricted quality and scope of what is collected as "best available evidence." The authoritative aura given to the collection, however, may lead to major abuses that produce inappropriate guidelines or doctrinaire dogmas for clinical practice. (shrink)