|
Some critics have said that clinicians, consumers and payers need to know whether or not a new treatment is better than other existing comparable treatments, not a (is this better than nothing) placebo.
The trials with people in this instance are ones who ought to be on some sort of medication. So providing them with nothing, rather than an existing drug, is a serious situation.
It's been an ethical question for a long time here in the United States. Some cannot see that anyone would do something so unethical as set up a trial that did not offer the chance at the current standard of therapy versus a new drug.
Being on a placebo for a few months means that a cancer seriously can progress to the point that treatment would no long benefit them. No thanks! I'd skip clinical trials.
There are some medical oncologists utilizing cell-based bio-markers for years in their managment of their cancer patients that feel it is unethical not to use them, as opposed to "trial-and-error" treatment. Science is in the eye of the beholder. If you know something works better than nothing......
|
Threaded Mode