SUPPORT: Risks, Harms, and Equipoise

Hastings Center Report 45 (1):40-42 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The debate about the ethics of the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial (SUPPORT) often focuses on the assumptions made by the different parties involved, failing to note the lack of a necessary connection between those assumptions and the main criticism of the study—that the parents appear to have been poorly informed. The fact that the target ranges of oxygen saturation (SpO2) used in SUPPORT were within the range recommended as an appropriate “standard of care” does not mean that the infants randomized to one of two restricted SpO2 ranges received the same treatment they would have received outside of the trial. The corresponding observation that randomization altered the potential harms to which an individual infant was exposed does not mean that the risks of being in SUPPORT were greater than or in addition to the risks associated with usual care. The argument that parents should have been better informed about these potential harms does not entail the (incorrect) assumption that neonatal clinicians make individualized treatment decisions rather than follow a standardized protocol when adjusting the level of oxygen a preterm infant receives. The fact that parents are unaware of the trade‐off clinicians make between these potential harms when establishing such a protocol does not justify the failure to adequately inform parents about the purpose of SUPPORT and the risks and harms that were involved.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,069

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Equipoise and Nonmedical Risks.Brandon Boesch - 2014 - American Journal of Bioethics 14 (4):16-18.
Group risks, risks to groups, and group engagement in genetics research.Daniel M. Hausman - 2007 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (4):351-369.
Revisiting equipoise: A response to Gifford.Paul B. Miller & Charles Weijer - 2007 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (3):227-246.
Equipoise: Beyond rehabilitation?Jerry Menikoff - 2003 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (4):347-351.
Clinical Equipoise: Actual or Hypothetical Disagreement?Scott Gelfand - 2013 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (6):590--604.
The irrelevance of equipoise.Robert M. Veatch - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (2):167 – 183.
Equipoise and the Criteria for Reasonable Action.Emily L. Evans & Alex John London - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (2):441-450.
Alcohol and Controlling Risks through Nudges.Thom Brooks - 2015 - The New Bioethics 21 (1):46-55.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-06-30

Downloads
5 (#1,379,373)

6 months
4 (#368,572)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?