1eye wrote:drsclafani wrote:Cece wrote:codefellow wrote:MarkW wrote: I challenge the need to sedate patients (extra drug usage) just to attempt to blind patients...........not ethical.
If patient gives informed consent for blinding and extra drug usage and knows he/she may not get actual treatment, where is the ethical breach?
There's a risk taken with no benefit to the patient.
there must be no coercion, patients must be treated with dignity and privacy, and they must be appraised of the risks
Patients do not have to choose to be a trial patient.
This one is one I know something about. There is an unspoken coercion by the implication that the trial is the only hope you have. That is emphasized, I believe, unethically, when it is given last as a treatment option. I think denial of treatments that have worked in the past to patients who plead for them, regardless of the doctor's expectation of them working, is unethical, and is used unethically as part of the coercion to trials which are much more interesting to the doctor than to the patient. I was swayed by the last argument, that I did not have to do anything. I was interested in the result. Like the doctor, I was just plain curious. What a situation to be in!
gary siskin's trial requiredd that patients have the option of treatment outside of trial in order for the trial to be approved.