Can unequal be more fair? A response to Andrew Avins

Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (3):179-182 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, we respond to Andrew Avins's recent review of methods whose use he advocates in clinical trials, to make them more ethical. He recommends in particular, “unbalanced randomisation”. However, we argue that, before such a recommendation can be made, it is important to establish why unequal randomisation might offer ethical advantages over equal randomisation, other things being equal. It is important to make a pragmatic distinction between trials of treatments that are already routinely available and trials of restricted treatments. We conclude that unequal randomisation could, indeed, be an ethical compromise between protecting the interests of participants and those of society

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
71 (#208,890)

6 months
2 (#658,848)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Steve Edwards
University of Edinburgh

Citations of this work

Can Children be Altruistic Research Subjects?Merle Spriggs - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (5):49-50.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references