Doctor of Philosophy (PHD)
Philosophy (Arts and Sciences)
Date of Defense
First Committee Member
Ed Erwin - Committee Chair
Second Committee Member
Risto Hilpinen - Committee Member
Third Committee Member
Otávio Bueno - Committee Member
I argue for two main theses that are at odds with the positions of many clinical researchers and philosophers who write on the ethics of clinical research. The first is that certain types of clinical trials, namely, randomized clinical trials with double or triple blinding and a placebo group are generally necessary to establish that a medical intervention is effective in treating a certain type of disease or disorder. The second main thesis is that such trials are generally not ethically impermissible. My minimalist defense of clinical trials differs from most defenses of clinical trials found in the literature. I feel that the ethical permissibility of clinical trials can be judged by answering yes to the following questions: 1) Is the potential experimental subject competent to exercise his autonomy and his right of self determination in order to enroll in the clinical trial? 2) Is the potential experimental subject informed about the nature of risk and benefit involved in his participation in the clinical trial? 3) Is the trial scientifically/ epistemically valid? 4) Will the trial attempt to answer a scientific question or questions of value? I argue that competent persons have the right to enroll in scientifically valid clinical trials so long as they are informed and consent to participate.
Clinical Trials; Bioethics; Clinical Research; Research Ethics; RCTs; Placebo
Schuh, Sr., Matthew Anderson, "The Epistemic Necessity and Ethical Permissibility of Randomized Clinical Trials: A Minimalist Defense" (2008). Open Access Dissertations. 167.