Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Placebos can cause cancer (?!)
Message-ID: <10970@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 23-May-85 14:26:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.10970
Posted: Thu May 23 14:26:51 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 22:32:22 EDT
References: <1589@aecom.UUCP> <1273@hammer.UUCP> <437@ttidcc.UUCP>
Reply-To: wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP
Distribution: na
Organization: USAMC ALMSA
Lines: 26
Summary: Problems of controlled tests

A general query about controlled experiments, inspired by the subject
discussion:

If you are testing a truly effective medication, say for some serious
disease or condition, and are conducting a blind or double-blind test
where some participants get placebos and some the medication, and a
number of the control group die because they got only placebos, while
all the test subjects survive because this experimental medication was
really effective, have you not violated the Hippocratic oath (and also
laid yourself open for damages, no matter what you had the participants 
sign), by denying this (admittedly experimental) medication to people
who could possibly have been saved by it?

I recognize the necessity for testing before drugs or treatments are
made available; there are both scientific and legal requirements for such
testing. Yet I always wonder about those in these "control" groups;
they aren't subject to the risks of the tested substance, but cannot
get any possible benefits, either.

I would think these considerations would make controlled testing
for truly-life-saving treatments practically impossible to carry out.
Am I right in this supposition?

Will Martin

USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin     or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA