Sham surgery controls: intracerebral grafting of fetal tissue for Parkinson's disease and proposed criteria for use of sham surgery controls
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 28 (5):322-325 (2002)
Sham surgery is a controversial and rarely used component of randomised clinical trials evaluating surgical interventions. The recent use of sham surgery in trials evaluating efficacy of intracerebral fetal tissue grafts in Parkinson’s disease has highlighted the ethical concerns associated with sham surgery controls. Macklin, and Dekkers and Boer argue vigorously against use of sham surgery controls. Macklin presents a broad argument against sham surgery controls while Dekkers and Boer present a narrower argument that sham surgery is unnecessary in the specific setting of fetal tissue engraftment for Parkinson’s disease. I defend sham surgery controls against both these criticisms. Appropriate clinical trial design, sometimes including sham surgery, is needed to ensure that false positive trial results do not occur and endanger public safety. Results of a completed trial of fetal tissue grafting for Parkinson’s disease are used to illustrate the potential benefits of, and problems associated with, sham surgery controls. Sham surgery controls, however, should be employed only when absolutely necessary. I suggest criteria for appropriate use of sham surgery controls
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Teresa Swift & Richard Huxtable (2013). The Ethics of Sham Surgery in Parkinson's Disease: Back to the Future? Bioethics 27 (4):175-185.
Franklin G. Miller (2004). Sham Surgery: An Ethical Analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1):41-48.
R. L. Albin (2005). Sham Surgery Controls Are Mitigated Trolleys. Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (3):149-152.
Charles J. Kowalski (2003). Sham Surgery: Not an Oxymoron. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (4):8 – 9.
Peter Angelos (2003). Sham Surgery in Research: A Surgeon's View. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (4):65-66.
Franklin G. Miller (2003). A Response to Commentators on "Sham Surgery: An Ethical Analysis". American Journal of Bioethics 3 (4):36-36.
Chalmers C. Clark (2003). The Physician's Role, "Sham Surgery," and Trust: A Conflict of Duties? American Journal of Bioethics 3 (4):57-58.
Scott Y. H. Kim (2003). The Sham Surgery Debate and the Moral Complexity of Risk-Benefit Analysis. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (4):68-70.
Howard Mann (2003). Sham Surgery in Randomized Trials: Additional Requirements Should Be Satisfied. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (4):5 – 7.
Alex John London & Joseph B. Kadane (2003). Sham Surgery and Genuine Standards of Care: Can the Two Be Reconciled? American Journal of Bioethics 3 (4):61-64.
W. Dekkers (2001). Sham Neurosurgery in Patients with Parkinson's Disease: Is It Morally Acceptable? Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (3):151-156.
John C. Fletcher (2003). Sham Neurosurgery in Parkinson's Disease: Ethical at the Time. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (4):54-56.
Peter A. Clark (2003). Sham Surgery: To Cut or Not to Cut—That Is the Ethical Dilemma. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (4):66-68.
Peter A. Clark (2002). Placebo Surgery for Parkinson's Disease: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (1):58-68.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads1 ( #484,599 of 1,413,475 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #155,015 of 1,413,475 )
How can I increase my downloads?