Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Bioethics. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
An 8 page research paper that discusses the ethics of randomized clinical trials using placebos versus the duty of physicians to act in the best interests of their patients. The 2000 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki and its ramifications are discussed, delineating the debate that surrounds this issue. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
8 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khbioeth.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
the effects of a new drug against how patients reacted who only thought they were receiving a new drug, but were, in fact, taking a placebo. Today, many policymakers question
the ethical foundation behind randomized clinical trials, which rely on control groups that, essentially, do not receive medical treatment while participating in the study. This issue and its ramifications have
generated heated debate within the scientific community. Weijer and Anderson (2001) state that the debate revolves around the "question of the ethical permissibility of placebo controls when an effective
treatment for a disease exists" (p. 18). The ramifications of this question change in relation to whether or not the clinical trial is taking place in a developed or
an undeveloped country. In the developed countries, the debate hinges on whether or not the alleged scientific advantages associated with placebo-controlled trials negates the obligation of a clinician-investigator to guarantee
that the care patients receive is not compromised (Weijer and Anderson, 2001). In developing countries, there is also the consideration of what treatment are available. In North America, the common
practice is for placebo-controlled trials to constitute a part of the approval process for all new drugs that are intended to treat conditions that already have existent therapies -- allergies,
depression, schizophrenia, etc. (Weijer and Anderson, 2001). These trials are justified via the rationalization that such trails are necessitated by good
scientific practice, and, also, because they do not expose subjects to "serious risks, namely death or permanent disability" (Weijer and Anderson, 2001, p. 18). However, critics argue that even though
patients do not suffer serious harm, they are not benefited to the degree that they could be if they were actually receiving medical intervention instead of a placebo (Weijer and
...