Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)

5. Those getting a placebo are being lied to. Hiding behind randomized chance does not change it.

Reply to bananas (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 18, 2014, 04:38 PM

Aug 2014

I understand very well how control groups work. I understand the very low quantities of treatment available.

In a male pattern baldness study, the need for a control group is obvious and warranted. In the case of ebola, however, is it ethical to give a person false hope that the MIGHT be getting a real treatment? They already face around a 50-50 chance of dying. Does the false hope given to the placebo group have ANY value? Does it serve a purpose?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

On the science and ethics of Ebola treatments [View all] Jim__ Aug 2014 OP

I see some misconceptions in the article magical thyme Aug 2014 #1

"nobody has yet been assigned to a control group." Thor_MN Aug 2014 #2

They have an extremely limited supply and can't give it to more than a few people anyway bananas Aug 2014 #4

Those getting a placebo are being lied to. Hiding behind randomized chance does not change it. Thor_MN Aug 2014 #5

+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB Aug 2014 #6

Here's the direct link bananas Aug 2014 #3

I design experimental protocols for work in humans. Randomizing would be unethical now. politicat Aug 2014 #7