Rehabilitating Equipoise

When may a physician legitimately offer enrollment in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) to her patient? Two answers to this question have had a profound impact on the research ethics literature. Equipoise, as originated by Charles Fried, which we term Fried's equipoise (FE), stipulates that a p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal 2003-06, Vol.13 (2), p.93-118
Main Authors: Miller, Paul B, Weijer, Charles
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bioethics
Clinical medicine
Clinical trials
Dissent and Disputes
Ethics
Ethics Committees, Research
Ethics, Medical
Ethics, Research
Experimentation on humans
Humans
Informed consent
Medical research
Medical sector
Patient Selection - ethics
Patients
Personal grooming
Physician and patient
Physician-Patient Relations
Physicians
Placebos
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - ethics
Research Design
Research ethics
Uncertainty
United States
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-7d9706aa1e19a481ab2fb29dda6f826adb164a7a9891df75165830769f0b82dc3
cites
container_end_page 118
container_issue 2
container_start_page 93
container_title Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal
container_volume 13
creator Miller, Paul B
Weijer, Charles
description When may a physician legitimately offer enrollment in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) to her patient? Two answers to this question have had a profound impact on the research ethics literature. Equipoise, as originated by Charles Fried, which we term Fried's equipoise (FE), stipulates that a physician may offer trial enrollment to her patient only when the physician is genuinely uncertain as to the preferred treatment. Clinical equipoise (CE), originated by Benjamin Freedman, requires that there exist a state of honest, professional disagreement in the community of expert practitioners as to the preferred treatment. FE and CE are widely understood as competing concepts. We argue that FE and CE offer separable and, in themselves, incomplete justifications for the conduct of clinical trials. FE articulates conditions under which the fiduciary duties of physician to patient may be upheld in the conduct of research. CE sets out a standard for the social approval of research by institutional review boards. Viewed this way, FE and CE are not necessarily competing notions, but rather address complementary moral concerns.
doi_str_mv 10.1353/ken.2003.0014
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71287844</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>383010461</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-7d9706aa1e19a481ab2fb29dda6f826adb164a7a9891df75165830769f0b82dc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtLw0AURgdRbK0uBVciLtwlzp33LKXUBxQEH-thkploah5tJln4783QYsGNq3sXh-9yz4fQOeAUKKe3X75JCcY0xRjYAZoCViKhhOnDuHOWCCXoBJ2EsMIYM9DsGE2AcaG1llN08eI_bVZWZW_7svm4WmyGct2WwZ-io8JWwZ_t5gy93y_e5o_J8vnhaX63THKqoU-k0xILa8GDtkyBzUiREe2cFYUiwroMBLPSaqXBFZKD4IpiKXSBM0VcTmfoZpu77trN4ENv6jLkvqps49shGAlEScXYvyDXihMCEbz-A67aoWvGJwyBMY5SFaFkC-VdG0LnC7Puytp23wawiWLNKNZEsSaKHfnLXeiQ1d7t6Z3JEaC_V1c-7-sh-P1hxgTh5jWWE7vBdEzWVNAfg2yAyw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>217123384</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rehabilitating Equipoise</title><source>Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Art, Design &amp; Architecture Collection</source><creator>Miller, Paul B ; Weijer, Charles</creator><creatorcontrib>Miller, Paul B ; Weijer, Charles</creatorcontrib><description>When may a physician legitimately offer enrollment in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) to her patient? Two answers to this question have had a profound impact on the research ethics literature. Equipoise, as originated by Charles Fried, which we term Fried's equipoise (FE), stipulates that a physician may offer trial enrollment to her patient only when the physician is genuinely uncertain as to the preferred treatment. Clinical equipoise (CE), originated by Benjamin Freedman, requires that there exist a state of honest, professional disagreement in the community of expert practitioners as to the preferred treatment. FE and CE are widely understood as competing concepts. We argue that FE and CE offer separable and, in themselves, incomplete justifications for the conduct of clinical trials. FE articulates conditions under which the fiduciary duties of physician to patient may be upheld in the conduct of research. CE sets out a standard for the social approval of research by institutional review boards. Viewed this way, FE and CE are not necessarily competing notions, but rather address complementary moral concerns.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1054-6863</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1086-3249</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1086-3249</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1353/ken.2003.0014</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14569997</identifier><identifier>CODEN: KIEJEF</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Johns Hopkins University Press</publisher><subject>Bioethics ; Clinical medicine ; Clinical trials ; Dissent and Disputes ; Ethics ; Ethics Committees, Research ; Ethics, Medical ; Ethics, Research ; Experimentation on humans ; Humans ; Informed consent ; Medical research ; Medical sector ; Patient Selection - ethics ; Patients ; Personal grooming ; Physician and patient ; Physician-Patient Relations ; Physicians ; Placebos ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - ethics ; Research Design ; Research ethics ; Uncertainty ; United States</subject><ispartof>Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal, 2003-06, Vol.13 (2), p.93-118</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2003 Johns Hopkins University Press.</rights><rights>Copyright Johns Hopkins University Press Jun 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-7d9706aa1e19a481ab2fb29dda6f826adb164a7a9891df75165830769f0b82dc3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/217123384/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/217123384?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11686,12859,21392,27863,27922,27923,33609,33610,34773,34774,36058,36059,43731,44198,44361,73991,74498,74665</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14569997$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Miller, Paul B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weijer, Charles</creatorcontrib><title>Rehabilitating Equipoise</title><title>Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal</title><addtitle>Kennedy Inst Ethics J</addtitle><description>When may a physician legitimately offer enrollment in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) to her patient? Two answers to this question have had a profound impact on the research ethics literature. Equipoise, as originated by Charles Fried, which we term Fried's equipoise (FE), stipulates that a physician may offer trial enrollment to her patient only when the physician is genuinely uncertain as to the preferred treatment. Clinical equipoise (CE), originated by Benjamin Freedman, requires that there exist a state of honest, professional disagreement in the community of expert practitioners as to the preferred treatment. FE and CE are widely understood as competing concepts. We argue that FE and CE offer separable and, in themselves, incomplete justifications for the conduct of clinical trials. FE articulates conditions under which the fiduciary duties of physician to patient may be upheld in the conduct of research. CE sets out a standard for the social approval of research by institutional review boards. Viewed this way, FE and CE are not necessarily competing notions, but rather address complementary moral concerns.</description><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Dissent and Disputes</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Ethics Committees, Research</subject><subject>Ethics, Medical</subject><subject>Ethics, Research</subject><subject>Experimentation on humans</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed consent</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical sector</subject><subject>Patient Selection - ethics</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Personal grooming</subject><subject>Physician and patient</subject><subject>Physician-Patient Relations</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Placebos</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - ethics</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research ethics</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1054-6863</issn><issn>1086-3249</issn><issn>1086-3249</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUtLw0AURgdRbK0uBVciLtwlzp33LKXUBxQEH-thkploah5tJln4783QYsGNq3sXh-9yz4fQOeAUKKe3X75JCcY0xRjYAZoCViKhhOnDuHOWCCXoBJ2EsMIYM9DsGE2AcaG1llN08eI_bVZWZW_7svm4WmyGct2WwZ-io8JWwZ_t5gy93y_e5o_J8vnhaX63THKqoU-k0xILa8GDtkyBzUiREe2cFYUiwroMBLPSaqXBFZKD4IpiKXSBM0VcTmfoZpu77trN4ENv6jLkvqps49shGAlEScXYvyDXihMCEbz-A67aoWvGJwyBMY5SFaFkC-VdG0LnC7Puytp23wawiWLNKNZEsSaKHfnLXeiQ1d7t6Z3JEaC_V1c-7-sh-P1hxgTh5jWWE7vBdEzWVNAfg2yAyw</recordid><startdate>20030601</startdate><enddate>20030601</enddate><creator>Miller, Paul B</creator><creator>Weijer, Charles</creator><general>Johns Hopkins University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20030601</creationdate><title>Rehabilitating Equipoise</title><author>Miller, Paul B ; Weijer, Charles</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-7d9706aa1e19a481ab2fb29dda6f826adb164a7a9891df75165830769f0b82dc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Dissent and Disputes</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Ethics Committees, Research</topic><topic>Ethics, Medical</topic><topic>Ethics, Research</topic><topic>Experimentation on humans</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed consent</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical sector</topic><topic>Patient Selection - ethics</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Personal grooming</topic><topic>Physician and patient</topic><topic>Physician-Patient Relations</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Placebos</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - ethics</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research ethics</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Miller, Paul B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weijer, Charles</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Art, Design &amp; Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Miller, Paul B</au><au>Weijer, Charles</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rehabilitating Equipoise</atitle><jtitle>Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal</jtitle><addtitle>Kennedy Inst Ethics J</addtitle><date>2003-06-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>93</spage><epage>118</epage><pages>93-118</pages><issn>1054-6863</issn><issn>1086-3249</issn><eissn>1086-3249</eissn><coden>KIEJEF</coden><abstract>When may a physician legitimately offer enrollment in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) to her patient? Two answers to this question have had a profound impact on the research ethics literature. Equipoise, as originated by Charles Fried, which we term Fried's equipoise (FE), stipulates that a physician may offer trial enrollment to her patient only when the physician is genuinely uncertain as to the preferred treatment. Clinical equipoise (CE), originated by Benjamin Freedman, requires that there exist a state of honest, professional disagreement in the community of expert practitioners as to the preferred treatment. FE and CE are widely understood as competing concepts. We argue that FE and CE offer separable and, in themselves, incomplete justifications for the conduct of clinical trials. FE articulates conditions under which the fiduciary duties of physician to patient may be upheld in the conduct of research. CE sets out a standard for the social approval of research by institutional review boards. Viewed this way, FE and CE are not necessarily competing notions, but rather address complementary moral concerns.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Johns Hopkins University Press</pub><pmid>14569997</pmid><doi>10.1353/ken.2003.0014</doi><tpages>26</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1054-6863
ispartof Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal, 2003-06, Vol.13 (2), p.93-118
issn 1054-6863
1086-3249
1086-3249
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71287844
source Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection; Social Science Premium Collection; ABI/INFORM Global; PAIS Index; Art, Design & Architecture Collection
subjects Bioethics
Clinical medicine
Clinical trials
Dissent and Disputes
Ethics
Ethics Committees, Research
Ethics, Medical
Ethics, Research
Experimentation on humans
Humans
Informed consent
Medical research
Medical sector
Patient Selection - ethics
Patients
Personal grooming
Physician and patient
Physician-Patient Relations
Physicians
Placebos
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - ethics
Research Design
Research ethics
Uncertainty
United States
title Rehabilitating Equipoise
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T06%3A51%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rehabilitating%20Equipoise&rft.jtitle=Kennedy%20Institute%20of%20Ethics%20journal&rft.au=Miller,%20Paul%20B&rft.date=2003-06-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=93&rft.epage=118&rft.pages=93-118&rft.issn=1054-6863&rft.eissn=1086-3249&rft.coden=KIEJEF&rft_id=info:doi/10.1353/ken.2003.0014&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E383010461%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c391t-7d9706aa1e19a481ab2fb29dda6f826adb164a7a9891df75165830769f0b82dc3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=217123384&rft_id=info:pmid/14569997&rfr_iscdi=true