The Neiswanger Institute for Bioethics at Loyola University

Accepting placebos

Over at the Neuroethics and Law Blog, Adam Kolber argues that we should embrace the use of placebos:

Should a doctor stop prescribing antidepressants to a particular patient when the doctor believes that antidepressants will be no better for the patient than placebos? After recent changes in the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics, the doctor may have little choice but to stop. In November 2006, the AMA prohibited doctors from intentionally administering substances that they believe will only have placebo effects, unless they disclose to patients that they are doing so.

To most effectively use placebos in clinical practice, however, doctors cannot reveal their placebo nature. While placebo deception is a gray area of the law, the AMA’s prohibition makes it increasingly likely that doctors risk professional sanctions and legal liability when they use placebos without obtaining informed consent to do so.

Given our limited knowledge of placebo effects and patient preferences, the AMA prohibition is premature. While placebo deception should be rare, it sometimes promotes patients’ best interests. A rational patient might very well prefer to be deceived in some cases, if it means receiving a cheap and effective therapy with little risk of side effects. Even if a doctor believes that antidepressants will have no more than a placebo effect on a patient, we ought to allow the doctor to continue the therapy as before.

A "placebo positive" practice might face interesting challenges in getting informed consent -- if "informed" is the right word to use in this case. A patient would be consenting to possibly being lied to in the future. That's a lot of trust to place in your doctor.

And one more thing: if a doctor successfully treats a patient with a placebo, would it be ethical to eventually tell the patient that, yes, what you've been taking is just a sugar pill (or its equivalent)? Revealing that info could render the "treatment" ineffective and deprive the patient of whatever relief he or she has enjoyed.

-Greg Dahlmann

contribute a comment

Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.

what is this?

A 'Nature Top 50' science blog by the editors, staff and friends of The American Journal of Bioethics. Science writes: "To follow the latest twists in ... science stories with social impact, dive into this Web log"

The original story behind this blog

What people are saying about blog.bioethics.net

recently on blog.bioethics.net

You Break It, You Buy It

It turns out that the feds have finally decided to stop shelling out dollars to pay for the surgeries that fix the botched one from... (more)

Bargain Basement Genome

Next Big Future says that Applied Biosystems has announced that the $10,000 complete human genome is now in reach, taking less than 2 weeks to... (more)

Clean a Tooth--Save a Baby

Who would have thought there would be a correlation between healthy teeth and healthy babies? Well, it turns out that researchers at Aetna and Columbia... (more)

Wait a Minute Mister Postman....

First, actual anthrax showed up in letters in a mailroom. Now, DHHS says that the treatment for anthrax is doing to be delivered out of... (more)

23andHerBreasts

On Thursday, 23andMe announced their latest initiative aimed at bringing together the largest cohort of women with breast cancer "to build an infrastructure, based on... (more)

this blog's feed

  • Subscribe
    • XML
    • Google Reader or Homepage
    • Add to My Yahoo!
    • Subscribe with Bloglines
    • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
    • Add to My AOL
    • Convert RSS to PDF
    • Add to Technorati Favorites!
    • Add to your phone
    • Get RSS Buttons

info

archives

tags