Placebo Control Case Summary

In the field of medicine, clinical trials are known to be a reliable source of information. Although ethical issues do arise, to which the theory of equipoise was proposed, which states that there should be a balance of forces of interests (Weijer et al., 95). There are two types of equipoise; clinical and theoretical. Clinical equipoise is the assignment of multiple treatments to be tested on patients with the disagreement in the medical community in which medical professionals have differing views that one treatment is better than the others (Weijer et al., pg. 97). Theoretical equipoise is between a physician and researcher and the belief that the risks and benefits of the treatments are in perfect balance (Wiejer et al., 96). The differing factor of the two, being that clinical equipoise focuses on the difference in views of certain treatments involving much of the medical community to form an insightful conclusion on the procedure to which the evidence supporting each treatment does not have to be balanced, whereas theoretical equipoise focuses on the equal amount of risks and benefits within each treatment (Weijer et al., 97). With that being said I personally believe researchers must be in a state of clinical equipoise to run morally acceptable clinical trials.

On one hand, to involve the patient in decision-making, to act out of beneficence toward the patient and to have employed effective treatment options before considering placebo-prescribing is to respect patient autonomy and maintain the patient’s dignity. On the other hand, a consequential argument exists about the overall possible benefit of placebo-prescribing in clinical practice, if its use is effective. However, as I have said implicitly, the ends do not justify the means. Pure placebo-prescribing should only be done in limited cases where tests were ordered to try to rule out possible illnesses, where other acceptable alternative treatments were employed and where open communication and shared decision-making takes between the clinician and

Placebos have been used in clinical trials since the eighteenth century but did not become a research topic until the late twentieth century (van Haselen, 2013). Most often when using placebos in clinical trials it is to determine whether or not the active agent has more effect on a patient than the placebo by providing each to the same number of recipients. The trials are almost always double blinded, this means that both person giving the drug and the person receiving it are unaware whether or not it is active so that good care and relationships must be present in the recipients at all times (Tavel, 2014). Ovosi, Ibrahim, & Bello-Ovosi (2017) declared “The choice between placebo and active controls in clinical trials affects the quality of the result as well as the ethical and scientific acceptability by both the public and regulatory bodies. It has, therefore, continued to generate discuss among researchers” (para. 3). This goes against the autonomy of a patient which is the right for a person to

The author believes that biomedical research is the way of better understanding medicine and without randomized clinical trials the field of medicine will have insufficient information. He argues that randomized clinical trials are the most scientifically sound and ethically correct means of evaluating new therapies. The belief of a physician being unethical when running randomized clinical trials is rejected by this article because previous trials on patients can have a better outcome on future patients. This article stresses that randomized clinical trials must be carefully designed that has an intended purpose of gathering data to improve the wellbeing of patients. If the patient is to endure a clinical trial he/she must be properly informed of the risks of the trial and the health of the patient should be high priority. Overall this article explains the importance of randomized clinical trials and debunks the idea of randomized clinical trials as being unethical. This article uses a utilitarian point of view and gives reasons why these trials can be in the best interests for both the patient and society.

The power of the placebo is more readily explained as a function of the individual because the

Not only could a complete experimental trial help avoid mistakes based on early promise in a study, there was also the possibility that Mr. Ryan would not benefit from PLX4032, which in effect would have delayed the study as the principals of a randomized controlled trial would have been compromised.

• Ensure the human rights of the participants in emerging countries associated with the predictable risks

Introduction: Researchers will select a group of qualifying participants for the study. The participants will be randomly divided into two groups. Researchers will then manipulate the variables by administering the Physostigmine drug to one group and placebo to another. Researchers will then measure the variable and compare the groups, to see if the drug Physostigmine produced its desired effect. The experiment will be a double-blind study, neither the subject nor experimenter will know what treatment the subject is receiving; a third-party administrator will be the only one who has the knowledge of which patient receive what treatment, until the tests are concluded and the comparisons can begin.

Placebos date back to as far as the 14th century. Although the placebo is most commonly used as a sugar pill in drug trials, it has been used for all kinds of other interventions. “The word placebo (Latin, ‘I shall please’) was first used in the 14th century.” (Craen 1999). During the 14th century it was adduced to hired mourners at funerals. It wasn’t until the late 18th century that the word placebo was used medically. “In the 1785 New Medical Dictionary, placebo is described as a ‘a common place method or medicine’”. (Craen 1999). In 1811 the definition changed to a medicine adapted more to please than to benefit a patient. Throughout the entire first half of the 20th

For sure, the expectation is the key point of the phenomenon, as Irving Kirsch, an associate director of the Placebo Study in Harvard University, said “the way we feel depends largely on how we anticipate that we will feel” (Punset 1). Placebo effect is not magic and it is not a fake drug either, and due to the enhance of technology, scientist know that the brain is capable to produce their own medicine. For some people, could mean as a simple talk but for the patient could entirely depends of how he or she will heal. As a final though, if the brain is able to cure the rest of the body, there is no sense why not to use

Furthermore, the placebo effect inevitably plays a role every time a general practitioner and their patients interact. It has been shown, for example, that a painkiller works better if it’s openly injected than when it is injected through an already existing drip, unbeknownst to the patient. (8) The doctor can choose to minimize or maximize the effect (9). Some even go so far as suggesting that to some extent, doctors themselves are placebos (4), as the approach the physician takes on an issue can increase or decrease the likelihood of the patient feeling better. An experiment was conducted in which a general practitioner compared four groups of patients who suffered from symptoms that had no clear cause, to determine the effects of a positive

Merriam-Webster defines a placebo as “a substance that is inert” or does not contain an active ingredient- also sometimes called a “sugar pill” (n.d.). Placebos are most commonly used in studies to try to understand the effects of new drugs and/or treatments compared to a neutral substance; one that will not elicit any effect. The problem with that is the “Placebo Effect” is actually, by definition, a paradox. The Placebo effect is defined as “a reaction to a placebo manifested by a lessening of symptoms or the production of anticipated side effects”. The paradox comes in play when a placebo, which is by the earlier definition, a substance that cannot cause side effects, begins causing effects such

he placebo effect has many positives and negatives. Some of the positives are theoretically if the patient believes in the drug it can help alleviate physical or psychological symptoms or even disease, like in Dr. Wright's case. Another positive is being told something will help them can at least put a patient at easy even if it doesn't help cure them. Also it is generally not harmful in studies because it is just a sugar pill, and contains no actual drug, although if the person taking the placebo though it would hurt them then it could have a nocebo type of affect on them. The last positive is that if it can be found to cure people it is very affordable, due to it generally being made of sugar.

The placebo effect, in my opinion is a positive psychological reaction from a patient taking a non-active drug that delivers a similar response as to a patient who takes an active drug. It is a well-known phenomenon in the area of psychology that some patients given a placebo treatment will have a perceived or actual improvement in a medical condition. The one major advantage of implementing placebos in treatment research is the potential for creating a larger and quality sample size. Most importantly, a large sample size is more representative of the population, limiting the influence of outliers or extreme observations. The one major disadvantage of implementing placebos in treatment research on a larger level would be the expense incurred in using more resources. However, the large sample size deepens the

Difficulty understanding treatment options is not just experimental, it is conceptual as well OK. What the patient may wish to obtain (the request) may not be the same as in - Cecian wants delivery (supply), given insurance and price regulation in health care. The normal forces of balance in the market are unlikely to achieve this balance. Think Simple form of medical treatments at the request of the patient and physician evaluation Of the optimal treatment of