The Irrelevance of Equipoise  

Oleh:

Veatch, Robert M.

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy vol. 32 no. 2 (Mar. 2007), page 167-183.
Topik: Consent To Randomization; Equipoise; Idiosyncratic Preferences; Individual Versus Clinical Equipoise
Fulltext: MM80V32N2P167.pdf (118.4KB)

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan Pusat (Semanggi) Nomor Panggil: MM80.17 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

It is commonly believed in research ethics that some form of equipoise is a necessary condition for justifying randomized clinical trials, that without it clinicians are violating the moral duty to do what is best for the patient. Recent criticisms have shown how complex the concept of equipoise is, but often retain the commitment to some form of equipoise for randomization to be justified. This article rejects that claim. It first asks for what one should be equally poised (scientific or clinical equipoise), then asks who should be equally poised (scientist, clinician, or subject), and finally asks why any of these players need be equally poised between treatment options. The article argues that only the subject's evaluation of the options is morally relevant and that even the subject need not be equally poised or indifferent between the options in order to volunteer for randomization. All that is needed is adequately informed, free, and unexploited consent. It concludes equipoise is irrelevant.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali