title: Sham surgery controls are mitigated trolleys.
abstract: Debate continues about the ethics of sham surgery controls. The most powerful argument for sham surgery controls is that rigorous experiments are needed to demonstrate safety and efficacy of surgical procedures. Without such experiments, there is danger of adopting worthless procedures in clinical practice. Opponents of sham surgery controls argue that sham surgery constitutes unacceptable violation of the rights of research subjects. Recent philosophical discussion has used two thought experiments-the transplant case and the trolley problem-to explore the circumstances under which individuals may be harmed to benefit a larger group. The transplant case is felt to exemplify circumstances that forbid harming some to benefit a larger group while the trolley problem exemplifies circumstances that permit harming some to benefit others. I argue that sham surgery controls satisfy criteria derived from the trolley problem and are morally permissible.
authors.affiliation: 4412D Kresge III, 200 Zina Pitcher Place, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0585, USA. ralbin@umich.edu
authors.forename: R L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Albin
mesh_terms: D018849:Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; D032984:Ethics, Research; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D028701:Patient Rights; D013514:Surgical Procedures, Operative / Q000941:ethics*
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2002 Jul 11;347(2):137-9
references.pmid: 12110744
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2002 Jul 11;347(2):81-8
references.pmid: 12110735
references.citation: Stat Methods Med Res. 2002 Oct;11(5):413-27
references.pmid: 12357587
references.citation: Crit Care Med. 2003 Mar;31(3 Suppl):S126-30
references.pmid: 12626957
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1999 Sep 23;341(13):988-92
references.pmid: 10498497
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1999 Sep 23;341(13):992-6
references.pmid: 10498498
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1959 May 28;260(22):1115-8
references.pmid: 13657350
references.citation: JAMA. 1961 Jul 1;176:1102-7
references.pmid: 13688614
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Aug;53(8):786-92
references.pmid: 10942860
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2001 Mar 8;344(10):710-9
references.pmid: 11236774
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2001 May 24;344(21):1594-602
references.pmid: 11372012
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2001 Jun;27(3):151-6
references.pmid: 11417020
references.citation: Lancet. 2001 Nov 24;358(9295):1772-7
references.pmid: 11734235
references.citation: Ann Surg. 2002 Feb;235(2):303-7
references.pmid: 11807373
references.citation: J Law Med Ethics. 2002 Spring;30(1):58-68
references.pmid: 11905269
references.citation: J Law Med Ethics. 2002 Spring;30(1):69-72
references.pmid: 11905271
references.citation: Mov Disord. 2002;17 Suppl 3:S15-21
references.pmid: 11948751
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 2002 Oct;28(5):322-5
references.pmid: 12356962