Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Can unequal be more fair? Ethics, subject allocation, and randomised clinical trials.A. L. Avins - 1998 - Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (6):401-408.
    Randomised clinical trials provide the most valid means of establishing the efficacy of clinical therapeutics. Ethical standards dictate that patients and clinicians should not consent to randomisation unless there is uncertainty about whether any of the treatment options is superior to the others ("equipoise"). However, true equipoise is rarely present; most randomised trials, therefore, present challenging ethical dilemmas. Minimising the tension between science and ethics is an obligation of investigators and clinicians. This article briefly reviews several techniques for addressing this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • A Desperate Solution: Individual Autonomy and the Double-Blind Controlled Experiment.G. Logue & S. Wear - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):57-64.
    The randomization ingredient in double-blind controlled experiments may be objectionable to patients who, in their desperation, come to such trials seeking a last chance of cure. Minogue et al., who view such a situation as inherently exploitive and undermining of patient autonomy, propose that such “desperate volunteers” instead be enrolled in the active arm, while other patients, less desperate and more committed to medical progress, continue to be randomized. Their view is critiqued as destructive of medical progress, inappropriate in its (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations