David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (3):149-152 (2005)
Debate continues about the ethics of sham surgery controls. The most powerful argument for sham surgery controls is that rigorous experiments are needed to demonstrate safety and efficacy of surgical procedures. Without such experiments, there is danger of adopting worthless procedures in clinical practice. Opponents of sham surgery controls argue that sham surgery constitutes unacceptable violation of the rights of research subjects. Recent philosophical discussion has used two thought experiments—the transplant case and the trolley problem—to explore the circumstances under which individuals may be harmed to benefit a larger group. The transplant case is felt to exemplify circumstances that forbid harming some to benefit a larger group while the trolley problem exemplifies circumstances that permit harming some to benefit others. I argue that sham surgery controls satisfy criteria derived from the trolley problem and are morally permissible
|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
R. L. Albin (2002). Sham Surgery Controls: Intracerebral Grafting of Fetal Tissue for Parkinson's Disease and Proposed Criteria for Use of Sham Surgery Controls. Journal of Medical Ethics 28 (5):322-325.
Franklin G. Miller (2004). Sham Surgery: An Ethical Analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1):41-48.
Teresa Swift & Richard Huxtable (2013). The Ethics of Sham Surgery in Parkinson's Disease: Back to the Future? Bioethics 27 (4):175-185.
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.
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.
Wendy Rogers, Christopher Degeling & Cynthia Townley (2014). Equity Under the Knife: Justice and Evidence in Surgery. Bioethics 28 (3):119-126.
D. W. Haslett (2011). Boulders and Trolleys. Utilitas 23 (03):268-287.
Phil Badger (2011). How To Get Off Our Trolleys. Philosophy Now 86:22-25.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads13 ( #332,897 of 1,924,770 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #417,923 of 1,924,770 )
How can I increase my downloads?