If the goal is relief, what’s wrong with a placebo?

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 53-54

  Stock, Gregory ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PLACEBO;

ARTHROSCOPY; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; ETHICS; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS; NOTE; PAIN; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECUMBENCY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURGERY;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

ARTHROSCOPY; DECEPTION; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; PAIN; PLACEBOS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 16644397633     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/152651603322614616     Document Type: Note

References (4)

1. Chang, R. W., J. Falconer, S. D. Stulberg et al. 1993. A randomized, controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery versus closed-needle joint lavage for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis and Rheumatism 36:289–96.
2. Macklin, R. 1999. The ethical problem with sham surgery in clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine 341:992–96.
3. Miller, F. G. 2003. Sham surgery: An ethical analysis. The American Journal of Bioethics 3(4):41–48.
4. Moseley, J. B., K. O’Malley, N. J. Petersen et al. 2002. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. New England Journal of Medicine 347:1717–19.