A Partial Defense of Clinical Equipoise

Autor/in	Gelfand, Scott D.
Titel	A Partial Defense of Clinical Equipoise
Quelle	In: Research Ethics, 15 (2019) 2, (17 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Gelfand, Scott D.)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1747-0161
DOI	10.1177/1747016119836630
Schlagwörter	Ethics; Medical Research; Physician Patient Relationship; Parent Child Relationship; Parent Role; Parent Responsibility; Physicians; Researchers; Randomized Controlled Trials + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Ethik; Arzt-Patient-Beziehung; Parents-child relationship; Parent-child-relation; Parent-child relationship; Eltern-Kind-Beziehung; Parental role; Elternrolle; Physician; Doctor; Arzt; Researcher; Forscher
Abstract	In this essay, I suggest that a slightly modified version of Freedman's formulation of the clinical equipoise requirement is justified. I begin this essay with a brief discussion of the equipoise requirement. In the second and third sections, I discuss several objections to the clinical equipoise requirement as well as two attempts to justify the equipoise requirement. In the fourth section, in order to gain some insight into what it means to say that a physician has an obligation to act in the best interest of her patient, I examine a similar obligation, namely, a parent's obligation to act in her child's best interest. I claim that there are several uncontroversial exceptions to this obligation, and these exceptions arise when a parent occupies a role more complex than the role of parent "simpliciter." In the fifth section, I explore whether the exceptions to a parent's obligation to act in her child's best interest may shed light on some exceptions to a physician-researcher's obligation to act in the best interest of her patient. These exceptions, I suggest, arise when a physician occupies a role more complex than physician "simpliciter," and they ground a permission to conduct randomized clinical trials, even if doing so is not in the best interest of a physician-researcher's patients. I furthermore claim that these exceptions provide justification for a modified formulation of the clinical equipoise requirement. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01