The ethical appraisal of the scientific paper which is about placeobo uploaded - Essay Example

Full Two Placebo Treatments (An Ethical Appraisal) 04 December (estimated word count = 652) Medical advances achieved over the last century has greatly improved human life; it has also increased longevity as well as the overall quality of life. The advances were achieved by scientific experiments using live subjects but these research studies have raised a number of ethical and moral issues despite the adoption of strict guidelines and standards (Rollin 3) by the scientific community. Proponents highly value the data obtained through research while its opponents question the validity of the data and further claim these experiments violate rights of human subjects despite the safeguards put in place (Cohen 86).

This paper discusses one such experiment conducted on live human subjects with use of a sham acupuncture device and an inert pill (composed mostly of starch and colored blue); the objective of the experiment was to determine the placebo effects and also measure how its supposedly enhanced effects can possibly alter the course of the ailment, which was persistent arm pain (upper extremities) due to repetitive use strain injury (Kaptchuk et al. 1). Issues on ethics are examined in the way this experiment was conducted, selection of participants, how informed consent was obtained, and other related ethical issues which might adversely affect them.

In terms of selection of potential participants, the study was conducted in an ethical manner as all selected participants were willing to join the study; this means participation was voluntary, and they can opt out at any time they want at any period during the study. Further, all of them were informed of the probable side effects (pain aggravation for acupuncture and dryness of the mouth, dizziness, sleepiness and restlessness for amitriptyline) and so informed consent was properly obtained all throughout the recruitment process (ibid. 2). A study physician was always assigned and present for the duration of the research study to ensure safety of subjects, such as if they ever experienced nocebo or any side effects whatsoever.

Moreover, the study authors intentionally shortened the run-in period from the original four weeks to two weeks to minimize any possible harm that might result if the participants were deprived of actual treatment for longer periods. However, an ethical question is always raised by the use of placebo treatments, because the sick participants were deprived of the treatments that could have cured them of the disease or at least minimized their pain or symptoms. This was actually what happened, as several participants within the control group (the ones given the placebo pill or sham device) had reported feelings of heightened pain or a severity of their symptoms during subsequent trials of active treatment (ibid. 5). This ethical issue crops up no matter how well designed the study experiment is, because people were used as guinea pigs.

The participants did not in any way belong to a vulnerable group, as arm pain is not considered a critical ailment and so there was no danger of aggravating their condition, except perhaps when the study got extended beyond the two-week run-in period for the two types of placebo treatments. The only probable risk the participants were exposed to was the extended period of the study, where those on both placebos could have gotten proper treatment sooner. The danger was that their pain could have gotten much worse with the progression of ailment.

This research study had prior approval based on its conception and study design; other boards of ethics, such as those from the Cambridge Health Alliance, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Harvard Medical School had given their ethical approval after proper review. The study authors were able to utilize the principles of reduction and refinement in the experiment but not replacement, as humans and animals are biologically different and results obtained are not considered as valid because the two species are not always comparable (Watson 38), hence humans have to be used as actual subjects and no animals were used as replacement.

Works CitedCohen, Carl. ““The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.” The New England Journal of Medicine 314 (1986): 865-869. Print. Also available at: n.d. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. .Kaptchuk, Ted J., et al. “Sham device v. inert pill: randomized controlled trial of two placebo treatments.” British Medical Journal (01 Feb. 2006): 1-7. Web. 28 Nov. 2012. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38726.603310.55 Rollin, Bernard E. Science and ethics. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print.Watson, Stephanie.

Animal testing: Issues and ethics. New York, NY, USA: Rosen Publishing Group Incorporated, 2009. Print.