It seems that whenever a perfect placebo be permissible, that is what is being used rather than the current standard of care.
Soldiers can be sent to their death for oil and other resources that benefit the larger majority? but this is “yikes”?, not a phrase I find to occur in conjunction with rational decisions often.
> Then why isn't it done as such in all instances?
It is. Control groups are no-treatment if no approved treatment exists, or current standard of care if there's an approved treatment. That's standard practice.
> It seems that whenever a perfect placebo be permissible, that is what is being used rather than the current standard of care.
If by "perfect placebo," you mean "no treatment," that's not correct, and is considered unethical.
> It is. Control groups are no-treatment if no approved treatment exists, or current standard of care if there's an approved treatment. That's standard practice.
I've read plenty of pharmaceutical trials where the control was a plain placebo, not the current standard of care, when it not involve a life threatening illness.
Clearly this antipsychotics trial does not evaluate the drug 's effectiveness against the current standard of care's, but against a placebo's.
> If by "perfect placebo," you mean "no treatment," that's not correct, and is considered unethical.
I mean giving them a drug that lacks an active ingredient but is otherwise not to the lay eye discriminatable from an effective drug.
And that is very much what is done in the case of the antipsychotics medicine I showed. So it's only unethical when human lives be at stake, apparently.
It seems that whenever a perfect placebo be permissible, that is what is being used rather than the current standard of care.
Soldiers can be sent to their death for oil and other resources that benefit the larger majority? but this is “yikes”?, not a phrase I find to occur in conjunction with rational decisions often.