The morality of clinical research--a case study.
The paper is a record of a debate which took place between a group of clinicians and the author concerning a clinical trial of a drug supposed to postpone the time when HIV-patients develop AIDS. A problem with the trial was that on available (inconclusive) evidence it appeared that one patient out of 500 was killed by the drug. The question raised was whether, in view of this evidence, it was morally defensible to go on with the trial. The discussion came to involve general topics such as the appropriate role of the ideal of autonomy as well as more particular topics of quantitative and qualitative risk assessments. The main thrust of the argument is that different conceptions of rationality may provide rationales of conflicting clinical decisions. Philosophy matters to medicine.
Tännsjö
T
T
Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, Sweden.
D000163:Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000517:prevention & control*; D026686:Beneficence; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D035061:Control Groups; D028663:Ethical Theory; D026822:Ethicists; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D006381:Helsinki Declaration; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D026706:Paternalism; D010344:Patient Advocacy; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D035842:Research Subjects; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D036302:Therapeutic Human Experimentation; D015215:Zidovudine / Q000627:therapeutic use
D015215:Zidovudine