Semmelweis's methodology from the modern stand-point: intervention studies and causal ontology

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)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 10,269
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
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.
Carl G. Hempel (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,Prentice-Hall.
David Papineau (1994). The Virtues of Randomization. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (2):437-450.

View all 7 references

Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Raphael Scholl (2013). Causal Inference, Mechanisms, and the Semmelweis Case. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (1):66-76.
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.
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.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-08-30

Total downloads

9 ( #146,831 of 1,096,180 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

4 ( #56,841 of 1,096,180 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.