Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.women
Subject: Re: Breast Cancer Treatment.
Message-ID: <884@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 03:10:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.884
Posted: Wed Jul 24 03:10:51 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jul-85 04:05:32 EDT
References: <1765@aecom.UUCP> <mnetor.1271> <602@unc.UUCP> <hammer.1390>, <647@unc.UUCP>
Organization: U Chicago -- Linguistics Dept
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.med:1806 net.women:6657

> My purpose in the statment you object to was to illustrate 
> why self-choice was not an acceptable alternative to 
> random assignment to treatment groups.
> 
> Bill Oliver


Before anyone misunderstands and leaps on this, note that Bill Oliver
was surely talking about the situation *after* the patient has elected
to participate in the study.  In any clinical study (with human subjects),
the choice of whether or not to participate has to be offered first.  The
strictures against self-choice apply to assigning those who have already
elected to participate into the various study groups.
-- 

            -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago 
               ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar