Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics

Howard Brody

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

This chapter examines the doctrine of clinical equipoise within the context of research ethics. It first considers the two components of clinical equipoise that are often erroneously conflated: the "honest null hypothesis" principle and the "no inferior treatment" principle. It then turns to instances of theoretical and practical incoherence in research ethics attributable to endorsing clinical equipoise as a fundamental principle, with particular emphasis on the incoherence of the therapeutic orientation to clinical trials and incoherence in risk-benefit assessment. It argues that clinical equipoise's basic appeal to the ethics of therapeutic medicine is misguided, since no ethical physician would treat patients in the way that clinical equipoise would allow research participants to be treated, and that clinical equipoise cannot be rendered coherent merely by carving out exceptions. Finally, the chapter discusses the non-exploitation framework by addressing the views of Jansen (2005).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationThe Ethical Challenges of Human Research: Selected Essays
PublisherOxford University Press
ISBN (Print)9780190267681, 9780199896202
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 15 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Research Ethics
Incoherence
Therapeutics
Carvings
Fundamental
Medicine
Physicians
Clinical Trials
Null Hypothesis
Doctrine

Keywords

  • Clinical equipoise
  • Clinical trials
  • Honest null hypothesis
  • No inferior treatment
  • Non-exploitation
  • Research ethics
  • Rrisk-benefit assessment
  • Therapeutic medicine
  • Therapeutic orientation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Cite this

Brody, H. (2012). Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics. In The Ethical Challenges of Human Research: Selected Essays Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896202.003.0016

Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics. / Brody, Howard.

The Ethical Challenges of Human Research: Selected Essays. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Brody, H 2012, Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics. in The Ethical Challenges of Human Research: Selected Essays. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896202.003.0016
Brody H. Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics. In The Ethical Challenges of Human Research: Selected Essays. Oxford University Press. 2012 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896202.003.0016
Brody, Howard. / Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics. The Ethical Challenges of Human Research: Selected Essays. Oxford University Press, 2012.
@inbook{da01f1b097b1475fae3cea14d6eb0a48,
title = "Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics",
abstract = "This chapter examines the doctrine of clinical equipoise within the context of research ethics. It first considers the two components of clinical equipoise that are often erroneously conflated: the {"}honest null hypothesis{"} principle and the {"}no inferior treatment{"} principle. It then turns to instances of theoretical and practical incoherence in research ethics attributable to endorsing clinical equipoise as a fundamental principle, with particular emphasis on the incoherence of the therapeutic orientation to clinical trials and incoherence in risk-benefit assessment. It argues that clinical equipoise's basic appeal to the ethics of therapeutic medicine is misguided, since no ethical physician would treat patients in the way that clinical equipoise would allow research participants to be treated, and that clinical equipoise cannot be rendered coherent merely by carving out exceptions. Finally, the chapter discusses the non-exploitation framework by addressing the views of Jansen (2005).",
keywords = "Clinical equipoise, Clinical trials, Honest null hypothesis, No inferior treatment, Non-exploitation, Research ethics, Rrisk-benefit assessment, Therapeutic medicine, Therapeutic orientation",
author = "Howard Brody",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896202.003.0016",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780190267681",
booktitle = "The Ethical Challenges of Human Research: Selected Essays",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics

AU - Brody, Howard

PY - 2012/11/15

Y1 - 2012/11/15

N2 - This chapter examines the doctrine of clinical equipoise within the context of research ethics. It first considers the two components of clinical equipoise that are often erroneously conflated: the "honest null hypothesis" principle and the "no inferior treatment" principle. It then turns to instances of theoretical and practical incoherence in research ethics attributable to endorsing clinical equipoise as a fundamental principle, with particular emphasis on the incoherence of the therapeutic orientation to clinical trials and incoherence in risk-benefit assessment. It argues that clinical equipoise's basic appeal to the ethics of therapeutic medicine is misguided, since no ethical physician would treat patients in the way that clinical equipoise would allow research participants to be treated, and that clinical equipoise cannot be rendered coherent merely by carving out exceptions. Finally, the chapter discusses the non-exploitation framework by addressing the views of Jansen (2005).

AB - This chapter examines the doctrine of clinical equipoise within the context of research ethics. It first considers the two components of clinical equipoise that are often erroneously conflated: the "honest null hypothesis" principle and the "no inferior treatment" principle. It then turns to instances of theoretical and practical incoherence in research ethics attributable to endorsing clinical equipoise as a fundamental principle, with particular emphasis on the incoherence of the therapeutic orientation to clinical trials and incoherence in risk-benefit assessment. It argues that clinical equipoise's basic appeal to the ethics of therapeutic medicine is misguided, since no ethical physician would treat patients in the way that clinical equipoise would allow research participants to be treated, and that clinical equipoise cannot be rendered coherent merely by carving out exceptions. Finally, the chapter discusses the non-exploitation framework by addressing the views of Jansen (2005).

KW - Clinical equipoise

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Honest null hypothesis

KW - No inferior treatment

KW - Non-exploitation

KW - Research ethics

KW - Rrisk-benefit assessment

KW - Therapeutic medicine

KW - Therapeutic orientation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84938651004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84938651004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896202.003.0016

DO - 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199896202.003.0016

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84938651004

SN - 9780190267681

SN - 9780199896202

BT - The Ethical Challenges of Human Research: Selected Essays

PB - Oxford University Press

ER -