Just read an article about the ethicality of randomized controlled clinical trials, particularly in oncology. The central argument that the author seems to be supporting is that these trials prevent patients from receiving treatments that could prolong their lives and / or relieve their suffering. This, she indicates, is a more important consideration than the "statistics" and "science." While I understand her position, I'm of the opinion that the reason we do randomized controlled trials is to make sure that the therapy being studied is a) safe, and b) effective. Sure, we could prescribe it to everyone right off the bat, but what if it ends up (as so many chemo alternatives seem to) being less useful than existing medications, or has intolerable side effects? I don't think it's corporate greed; I think it's good science and good medicine. I appreciate that it's a terrible decision to have to randomize people into the control arm, to not offer them this hope, but I think it's crucial to know what we'll be offering if and when it is approved. Would I think differently if I or one of my friends or family was affected by melanoma? It's possible. But I think overall it's too important to know that a drug is more than anecdotally effective before making it available. Any opinions or comments would be greatly appreciated.
Peace and God bless!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment