The writer examines the ethics of randomized clinical trials in which placebos are used, and how that relates to the duty physicians have to their patients. The writer also discusses the Declaration of Helsinki and its 2000 revision, the effects of that revision, and the ensuing controversy. The paper is eight pages long and there are five sources listed in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_khbioeth.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
the effects of a new drug against how patients reacted who only thought they were receiving a new drug, but were, in fact, taking a placebo. Today, many policymakers question
the ethical foundation behind randomized clinical trials, which rely on control groups that, essentially, do not receive medical treatment while participating in the study. This issue and its ramifications have
generated heated debate within the scientific community. Weijer and Anderson (2001) state that the debate revolves around the "question of the ethical permissibility of placebo controls when an effective
treatment for a disease exists" (p. 18). The ramifications of this question change in relation to whether or not the clinical trial is taking place in a developed or
an undeveloped country. In the developed countries, the debate hinges on whether or not the alleged scientific advantages associated with placebo-controlled trials negates the obligation of a clinician-investigator to guarantee
that the care patients receive is not compromised (Weijer and Anderson, 2001). In developing countries, there is also the consideration of what treatment are available. In North America, the common
practice is for placebo-controlled trials to constitute a part of the approval process for all new drugs that are intended to treat conditions that already have existent therapies -- allergies,
depression, schizophrenia, etc. (Weijer and Anderson, 2001). These trials are justified via the rationalization that such trails are necessitated by good
scientific practice, and, also, because they do not expose subjects to "serious risks, namely death or permanent disability" (Weijer and Anderson, 2001, p. 18). However, critics argue that even though
patients do not suffer serious harm, they are not benefited to the degree that they could be if they were actually receiving medical intervention instead of a placebo (Weijer and