Sham surgery controls are mitigated trolleys.
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.
Albin
R L
RL
4412D Kresge III, 200 Zina Pitcher Place, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0585, USA. ralbin@umich.edu
D018849:Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; D032984:Ethics, Research; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D028701:Patient Rights; D013514:Surgical Procedures, Operative / Q000941:ethics*
N Engl J Med. 2002 Jul 11;347(2):137-9
12110744
N Engl J Med. 2002 Jul 11;347(2):81-8
12110735
Stat Methods Med Res. 2002 Oct;11(5):413-27
12357587
Crit Care Med. 2003 Mar;31(3 Suppl):S126-30
12626957
N Engl J Med. 1999 Sep 23;341(13):988-92
10498497
N Engl J Med. 1999 Sep 23;341(13):992-6
10498498
N Engl J Med. 1959 May 28;260(22):1115-8
13657350
JAMA. 1961 Jul 1;176:1102-7
13688614
J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Aug;53(8):786-92
10942860
N Engl J Med. 2001 Mar 8;344(10):710-9
11236774
N Engl J Med. 2001 May 24;344(21):1594-602
11372012
J Med Ethics. 2001 Jun;27(3):151-6
11417020
Lancet. 2001 Nov 24;358(9295):1772-7
11734235
Ann Surg. 2002 Feb;235(2):303-7
11807373
J Law Med Ethics. 2002 Spring;30(1):58-68
11905269
J Law Med Ethics. 2002 Spring;30(1):69-72
11905271
Mov Disord. 2002;17 Suppl 3:S15-21
11948751
J Med Ethics. 2002 Oct;28(5):322-5
12356962