False hopes and best data

consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.

P. S. Appelbaum, L. H. Roth, C. W. Lidz, P. Benson, William Winslade

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

690 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Using examples from psychiatric research, the authors explore the ethical dilemma of the "therapeutic misconception," where, despite explanation, patient-subjects believe that research protocols are designed to benefit them directly rather than to test or compare treatment methods. Even potential subjects who demonstrate an understanding of randomization, double-blinded studies, and the use of placebos frequently persist in a belief that they purposely will receive the treatment most likely to benefit them. They expect the standards of personal care that characterize the therapeutic relationship to carry over to the clinical trial, failing to understand that the need for valid research results makes this impossible. Appelbaum et al. suggest ways in which patients can be made to understand the differences between treatment and research, and the disadvantages and advantages of participation in the latter.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)20-24
Number of pages5
JournalThe Hastings Center report
Volume17
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 1987

Fingerprint

Therapeutic Misconception
Hope
Research
research results
Therapeutics
Standard of Care
Random Allocation
Psychiatry
participation
Placebos
Clinical Trials
Misconceptions
Consent

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Nursing(all)
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

False hopes and best data : consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. / Appelbaum, P. S.; Roth, L. H.; Lidz, C. W.; Benson, P.; Winslade, William.

In: The Hastings Center report, Vol. 17, No. 2, 04.1987, p. 20-24.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Appelbaum, PS, Roth, LH, Lidz, CW, Benson, P & Winslade, W 1987, 'False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.', The Hastings Center report, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 20-24.
Appelbaum, P. S. ; Roth, L. H. ; Lidz, C. W. ; Benson, P. ; Winslade, William. / False hopes and best data : consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. In: The Hastings Center report. 1987 ; Vol. 17, No. 2. pp. 20-24.
@article{03731f5bdd5d4de5b8fc0c48391d8ce2,
title = "False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.",
abstract = "Using examples from psychiatric research, the authors explore the ethical dilemma of the {"}therapeutic misconception,{"} where, despite explanation, patient-subjects believe that research protocols are designed to benefit them directly rather than to test or compare treatment methods. Even potential subjects who demonstrate an understanding of randomization, double-blinded studies, and the use of placebos frequently persist in a belief that they purposely will receive the treatment most likely to benefit them. They expect the standards of personal care that characterize the therapeutic relationship to carry over to the clinical trial, failing to understand that the need for valid research results makes this impossible. Appelbaum et al. suggest ways in which patients can be made to understand the differences between treatment and research, and the disadvantages and advantages of participation in the latter.",
author = "Appelbaum, {P. S.} and Roth, {L. H.} and Lidz, {C. W.} and P. Benson and William Winslade",
year = "1987",
month = "4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "20--24",
journal = "Hastings Center Report",
issn = "0093-0334",
publisher = "Hastings Center",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - False hopes and best data

T2 - consent to research and the therapeutic misconception.

AU - Appelbaum, P. S.

AU - Roth, L. H.

AU - Lidz, C. W.

AU - Benson, P.

AU - Winslade, William

PY - 1987/4

Y1 - 1987/4

N2 - Using examples from psychiatric research, the authors explore the ethical dilemma of the "therapeutic misconception," where, despite explanation, patient-subjects believe that research protocols are designed to benefit them directly rather than to test or compare treatment methods. Even potential subjects who demonstrate an understanding of randomization, double-blinded studies, and the use of placebos frequently persist in a belief that they purposely will receive the treatment most likely to benefit them. They expect the standards of personal care that characterize the therapeutic relationship to carry over to the clinical trial, failing to understand that the need for valid research results makes this impossible. Appelbaum et al. suggest ways in which patients can be made to understand the differences between treatment and research, and the disadvantages and advantages of participation in the latter.

AB - Using examples from psychiatric research, the authors explore the ethical dilemma of the "therapeutic misconception," where, despite explanation, patient-subjects believe that research protocols are designed to benefit them directly rather than to test or compare treatment methods. Even potential subjects who demonstrate an understanding of randomization, double-blinded studies, and the use of placebos frequently persist in a belief that they purposely will receive the treatment most likely to benefit them. They expect the standards of personal care that characterize the therapeutic relationship to carry over to the clinical trial, failing to understand that the need for valid research results makes this impossible. Appelbaum et al. suggest ways in which patients can be made to understand the differences between treatment and research, and the disadvantages and advantages of participation in the latter.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023319217&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023319217&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 20

EP - 24

JO - Hastings Center Report

JF - Hastings Center Report

SN - 0093-0334

IS - 2

ER -