Philosophers assess randomized clinical trials: the need for dialogue.
In recent years a growing number of professional philosophers have joined in the controversy over ethical aspects of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Morally questionable in their utilitarian approach, RCTs are claimed by some to be in direct violation of the second form of Kant's Categorical Imperative. But the arguments used in these critiques at times derive from a lack of insight into basic statistical procedures and the realities of the biomedical research process. Presented to physicians and other nonspecialists, including the lay public, such distortions can be harmful. Given the great complexity of statistical methodology and the anomalous nature of concepts of evidence, more sustained input into the interdisciplinary dialogue is needed from the statistical profession.
Miké
V
V
Department of Public Health, Cornell University Medical College, New York, NY 10021.
D032882:Comprehension; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D026724:Ethical Review; D026822:Ethicists; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D006801:Humans; D033183:Interdisciplinary Communication; D007400:Interprofessional Relations; D028681:Moral Obligations; D018579:Patient Selection; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D011336:Probability; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods*; D012015:Reference Standards; D035842:Research Subjects; D018570:Risk Assessment; D035501:Uncertainty