Graduate studies at Western
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 40 (3):204-209 (2009)
|Abstract||Semmelweis’s work predates the discovery of the power of randomization in medicine by almost a century. Although Semmelweis would not have consciously used a randomized controlled trial (RCT), some features of his material—the allocation of patients to the first and second clinics—did involve what was in fact a randomization, though this was not realised at the time. This article begins by explaining why Semmelweis’s methodology, nevertheless, did not amount to the use of a RCT. It then shows why it is descriptively and normatively interesting to compare what he did with the modern approach using RCTs. The argumentation centres on causal inferences and the contrast between Semmelweis’s causal concept and that deployed by many advocates of RCTs. It is argued that Semmelweis’s approach has implications for matters of explanation and medical practice.|
|Keywords||randomized controlled trial intervention study causal ontology internal validity external validity Semmelweis|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nancy Cartwright (2010). What Are Randomised Controlled Trials Good For? Philosophical Studies 147 (1):59 - 70.
Raphael Scholl (2013). Causal Inference, Mechanisms, and the Semmelweis Case. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (1):66-76.
Nancy Cartwright & Eileen Munro (2010). The Limitations of Randomized Controlled Trials in Predicting Effectiveness. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2):260-266.
Luis M. Miller (2010). Why a Trade-Off? The Relationship Between the External and Internal Validity of Experiments. Theoria 25 (3):301-321.
Andrew Ward & Pamela Jo Johnson (2008). Addressing Confounding Errors When Using Non-Experimental, Observational Data to Make Causal Claims. Synthese 163 (3):419 - 432.
Robyn Bluhm (2009). Some Observations on “Observational” Research. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 52 (2):252-263.
A. la Caze (2009). Evidence-Based Medicine Must Be .. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (5):509-527.
David J. Torgerson & Carole J. Torgerson (2003). Avoiding Bias in Randomised Controlled Trials in Educational Research. British Journal of Educational Studies 51 (1):36 - 45.
Frederick Eberhardt & Richard Scheines (2007). Interventions and Causal Inference. Philosophy of Science 74 (5):981-995.
Arthur Schram (2005). Artificiality: The Tension Between Internal and External Validity in Economic Experiments. Journal of Economic Methodology 12 (2):225-237.
Caren A. Frosch, Teresa McCormack, David A. Lagnado & Patrick Burns (2012). Are Causal Structure and Intervention Judgments Inextricably Linked? A Developmental Study. Cognitive Science 36 (2):261-285.
Marc Buyse (1997). Opening Address: A Statistical Tribute to Ignaz Philip Semmelweis. Statistics in Medicine 16:2767--72.
Laurie J. Bauman, Jamie Heather Sclafane, Marni LoIacono, Ken Wilson & Ruth Macklin (2008). Ethical Issues in HIV/STD Prevention Research with High Risk Youth: Providing Help, Preserving Validity. Ethics and Behavior 18 (2 & 3):247 – 265.
Donald Gillies (2005). Hempelian and Kuhnian Approaches in the Philosophy of Medicine: The Semmelweis Case. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (1):159-181.
Floris Heukelom (2011). How Validity Travelled to Economic Experimenting. Journal of Economic Methodology 18 (01):13-28.
Added to index2010-08-30
Total downloads5 ( #170,343 of 739,053 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 739,053 )
How can I increase my downloads?