Details
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 102-112 |
Number of pages | 11 |
Journal | Clinical Ethics |
Volume | 19 |
Issue number | 1 |
Early online date | 25 Sept 2022 |
Publication status | Published - Mar 2024 |
Externally published | Yes |
Abstract
The principle of clinical equipoise has been variously characterized by ethicists and clinicians as fundamentally flawed, a myth, and even a moral balm. Yet, the principle continues to be treated as the de facto gold standard for conducting randomized control trials in an ethical manner. Why do we hold on to clinical equipoise, despite its shortcomings being widely known and well-advertised? This paper reviews the most important arguments criticizing clinical equipoise as well as what the most prominent proposed alternatives are. In the process, it evaluates the justification for continuing to use clinical equipoise as the gold standard for randomized control trials.
Keywords
- Clinical equipoise, clinical trials, informed consent, research ethics
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine(all)
- Medicine (miscellaneous)
- Nursing(all)
- Issues, ethics and legal aspects
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- Philosophy
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Clinical Ethics, Vol. 19, No. 1, 03.2024, p. 102-112.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical equipoise
T2 - Why still the gold standard for randomized clinical trials?
AU - Asonganyi Folefac, Charlemagne
AU - Desmond, Hugh
N1 - Funding Information: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Hugh Desmond's work on this article was supported by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (grant number 741782).
PY - 2024/3
Y1 - 2024/3
N2 - The principle of clinical equipoise has been variously characterized by ethicists and clinicians as fundamentally flawed, a myth, and even a moral balm. Yet, the principle continues to be treated as the de facto gold standard for conducting randomized control trials in an ethical manner. Why do we hold on to clinical equipoise, despite its shortcomings being widely known and well-advertised? This paper reviews the most important arguments criticizing clinical equipoise as well as what the most prominent proposed alternatives are. In the process, it evaluates the justification for continuing to use clinical equipoise as the gold standard for randomized control trials.
AB - The principle of clinical equipoise has been variously characterized by ethicists and clinicians as fundamentally flawed, a myth, and even a moral balm. Yet, the principle continues to be treated as the de facto gold standard for conducting randomized control trials in an ethical manner. Why do we hold on to clinical equipoise, despite its shortcomings being widely known and well-advertised? This paper reviews the most important arguments criticizing clinical equipoise as well as what the most prominent proposed alternatives are. In the process, it evaluates the justification for continuing to use clinical equipoise as the gold standard for randomized control trials.
KW - Clinical equipoise
KW - clinical trials
KW - informed consent
KW - research ethics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139155068&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/14777509221121107
DO - 10.1177/14777509221121107
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85139155068
VL - 19
SP - 102
EP - 112
JO - Clinical Ethics
JF - Clinical Ethics
SN - 1477-7509
IS - 1
ER -