A Response to a Purported Ethical Difficulty With Randomized Clinical Trials Involving Cancer Patients
Journal of Clinical Ethics. 1992 Fall; 3(3): 231-234.
In recent years, for a variety of reasons, the mainstay of clinical investigation -- the randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) -- has increasingly come under attack. Since Charles Fried's influential monograph, the opponents of controlled trials have claimed the moral high ground. They claim to perceive a conflict between the medical and scientific duties of the physician-investigator, and between the conduct of the trial and a patient's rights. Samuel and Deborah Hellman write, for example, that "the randomized clinical trial routinely asks physicians to sacrifice the interests of their particular patients for the sake of the study and that of the information that it will make available for the benefit of society." Maurie Markman's attraction to this point of view is clear when he writes that "the individual physician's principal ethical responsibility is to the
Alternatives; Autonomy; Cancer; Case Studies; Clinical Trials; Conscience; Consensus; Consent; Decision Making; Disclosure; Ethical Analysis; Females; Health; Health Care; Human Experimentation; Informed Consent; Investigators; Moral Policy; Nontherapeutic Research; Obligations to Society; Patient Advocacy; Patients; Physicians; Random Selection; Research; Research Design; Research Subjects; Rights; Risks and Benefits; Standards; Technical Expertise; Therapeutic Research; Uncertainty;
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Ethical Difficulties With Randomized Clinical Trials Involving Cancer Patients: Examples From the Field of Gynecologic Oncology Markman, Maurie (1992)In this article, I have attempted to present examples of the ethical difficulties with randomized clinical trials experienced by physicians caring for