Abstract
This article takes issue with those who defend a brand of clinical research ethics that tends to substitute the ethics of clinical care of patients being recruited as trial subjects. The distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic studies is being disregarded by arguing that research is concerned with the pursuit of knowledge rather than with the medical benefits for patients. Non-competent patients may therefore be recruited for studies that will offer them no medical benefits in spite of involving them in the inherent risks of any biomedical trial. Supported by the World Medical Association, clinicians tend to shun the use of placebos in randomized trials, because of the therapeutic void created in the control group. Nevertheless, investigators continue to consider that scientific purity demands the use of placebos as the most appropriate comparator, even if risks to patient-subjects are increased. Equipoise and clinical equipoise have been suggested as adequate criteria to evaluate the need for a clinical trial, when genuine uncertainty about the equivalence of medical measures requires clarification. If equipoise is understood as a balanced situation where alternatives are equivalent and exchangeable in the view of experienced and current medical thought, no comparison seems warranted until a substantiated doubt about their true equivalence appears. Whereas respecting equipoise is an important measure to curb redundant research, new trials become mandatory if equivalence is reliably questioned. In the best interests of patients being recruited for clinical trials, they should continue to be the full beneficiaries of clinical ethics, in addition to receiving the protection of research ethics. Placebos and sub-medication for control groups are to be used sparingly, and best existing therapy should be employed as control when new and promising agents are developed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Amiel P, Mathieu S, Fagot-Largeault A (2001) Acculturating human experimentation: an empirical survey in France. J Med Philos 26: 285–298
Angell M (2004) How the big drug companies deceive us. NY Rev 51: 52–58
Appelbaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz CW et al (1987) False hopes and best data: Consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 17: 20–24
Beecher HK (1966) Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med 274: 1354–1360
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2002) International Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. CIOMS 2002, Geneva
Crouch RA, Arras JD (1998) AZT trials and tribulations. Hastings Cent Rep 28: 26–34
Declaration of Helsinki (2000) Edinburgh
Dickert NW, Sugarman A (2007) Getting the ethics right regarding research in the emergency setting: lessons from the PolyHeme study. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 17: 153–169
Elliott C, Abadie R (2008) Exploiting a research underclass in phase 1 clinical trials. N Engl J Med 358: 2316–2317
Evans HM (2004) Should patients be allowed to veto their participation in clinical research. J Med Ethics 30: 198–203
Freedman B (1987) Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 317: 141–145
Fried C (1974) Medical experimentation: Personal integrity and social policy. American Elsevier, New York
Gifford F (2007) Pulling the plug on clinical equipoise: A critique of Miller and Weijer. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 17: 203–226
Grady C (1998) Science in the service of healing. Hastings Cent Rep 28: 34–38
Gupta M (2004) Reconsidering rationality and ethics in the evidence-based medicine debate: a reply to commentators. J Eval Clin Pract 10: 143–146
Harris J (2005) Scientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics 31: 242–248
Henderson GE, Churchill LR, Davis AM et al (2007) Clinical trials and medical care: defining the therapeutic misconception. PLoS Med 4: e324
Ingelfinger FJ (1972) Informed (but uneducated) consent. N Engl J Med 287: 465–466
Jansen LA (2005) A closer look at the bad deal trial. Hastings Cent Rep 35: 29–36
Johnson N, Lilford RJ, Brazier W (1991) At what level of collective equipoise does a clinical trial become ethical. J Med Ethics 17: 30–34
Jonas H (1965) Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. In: Freund PA(eds) Experimentation with human subjects. George Brazillier, New York, pp 1–31
Kottow M (2004) The battering of informed consent. J Med Ethics 30: 565–569
Kottow MH (2003) The vulnerable and the susceptible. Bioethics 17: 460–471
Lie RK (2004) Research ethics and evidence based medicine. J Med Ethics 30: 122–125
Lie RK, Emanuel E, Grady C et al (2004) The standard of care debate: the Declaration of Helsinki versus the international consensus opinion. J Med Ethics 30: 190–193
Lurie P, Wolfe SM (1997) Unethical trials of interventions to reduce perinatal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus in developing countries. N Engl J Med 337: 853–856
Macklin R (2001) After Helsinki: unresolved issues in international research. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 11: 17–36
Macklin R (2004) Double standards in medical research in developing countries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 29
Mastroianni A, Kahn J (2001) Swinging the pendulum. Shifting views of justice in human subjects research. Hastings Cent Rep 31: 21–28
Menikoff J (2003) Equipoise: beyond rehabilitation?. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 13: 347–351
Miller FG, Brody H. (2003) A critique of clinical equipoise. Therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials. Hastings Cent Rep 33: 19–28
Miller FG, Rosenstein DL, DeRenzo EG (1998) Professional integrity in clinical research. JAMA 280: 1449–1454
Miller PB, Weijer C (2003) Rehabilitating equipoise. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 13: 93–118
Moreno JD (2001) Goodbye to all that. Hastings Cent Rep 31: 9–17
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002) The ethics of research related to healthcare in developing countries. Nuffield Council of Bioethics, London
Orentlicher D (2005) Making research a requirement of treatment: why we should sometimes let doctors pressure patients to participate in research Hastings Cent Rep 35: 20–28
Pappworth MH (1967) Human guinea pigs. Beacon, Boston
Rhodes R (2005) Rethinking research ethics. Am J Bioeth 5: 7–28
Richardson HS, Belsky L (2004) The ancillary-care responsibilities of medical researchers. An ethical framework for thinking about the clinical care that researchers owe their subjects. Hastings Cent Rep 34: 25–33
Rogers WA (2004) Evidence based medicine and justice: a framework for looking at the impact of EBM upon vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. J Med Ethics 30: 141–145
Sass HM (1983) Rundschreiben 1931: pre-Nüremberg German regulations concerning new therapy and human experimentation. J Med Philos 8: 99–111
Schwitalla A (1929) The real meaning of research and why it should be encouraged. Modern Hosp 33: 77–80
Stone DA, Kerr CE, Jacobson E et al (2005) Patient expectations in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. J Eval Clin Pract 11: 77–84
Tavakoli M, Davies HT, Thomson R (2000) Decision analysis in evidence-based decision making. J Eval Clin Pract 6: 111–120
Temple R, Ellenberg SS (2000) Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med 133: 455–4633
Truog RD (1999) Informed consent and research design in critical care medicine. Crit Care 3: R29–R33
Truog RD, Robinson W, Randolph A et al (1999) Is informed consent always necessary?. N Engl J Med 340: 804–807
Veatch RM (195)) Abandoning informed research. Hastings Cent Rep 25: 5–12
Victoria CG, Habicht JP, Bryce J (2004) Evidence-based public health: moving beyond randomized trials. Am J Public Health 94: 400–405
Wendler D (2005) Protecting subjects who cannot give consent: toward a better standard for “minimal” risks. Hastings Cent Rep 35: 37–43
Young JM, Ward JE (2001) Evidence-based medicine in general practice: beliefs and barriers among Australian GPs. J Eval Clin Pract 7: 201–210
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Kottow, M.H. Clinical and research ethics as moral strangers. Arch. Immunol. Ther. Exp. 57, 157–164 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0027-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0027-8