BACKGROUND: Health technology assesment (HTA) requires scientifically rigorous experimentation involving patients as subjects. HTA itself is required so that treatment given to patients will be both effective and efficient; this requirement is itself ethical in nature. At the same time it is essential that the methods used in HTA are ethically sound. Most healthcare researchers agree that the most effective and soundest method for assessing treatments is the randomised controlled trial (RCT). However, some researchers believe that the RCT is unethical, either in essence, or for use in some forms of medical research and HTA. Furthermore, many patients seem unable to understand the principles and purposes of the RCT, a factor which is highly detrimental for the validity of informed consent. Informed consent is the key to the ethics of medical research, both in most theories and in all codes of research conduct. Many RCTs therefore risk being unethical in practice, even if ethical in principle. AIM OF REPORT: To survey the main objections to the RCT and its alternatives. To assess the philosophical and methodological basis of these objections, and of the methods recommended for addressing them. To identify areas where objections are founded in social or cultural factors normally overlooked in ethical argument about the RCT methodology. To identify alternative arguments or methods which might resolve ethical conflicts in this area. HOW THE RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED: The methods used were adapted from systematic reviews in medicine. Systematic searches of Medline, Psychlit and Sociofile CD-ROM databases; hand-searches of the major journals in general medicine and surgery, medical ethics and philosophy; and searches of books were carried out. The literature survey was restricted to articles published or abstracted in English. A database of the most relevant and useful materials was compiled, and is accessible on the Internet (http://www.liv.ac.uk/sdthomps/page1.html). RESEARCH FINDINGS: UNDERSTANDING RCTS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES: There is some evidence of difficulty in understanding the aims and methods of RCTs, and some disquiet about elements of the RCT methodologies. These objections are well known and much discussed, and concern the use of placebo, the continuation of trials after significant differentials in benefit or harm are apparent, and randomisation. CULTURAL OR RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS: There was an absence of evidence of cultural or religious objections to randomisation, placebo or other kinds of controlled prospective trials. This most likely reflects an absence of research rather than absence of objections. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
BACKGROUND: Health technology assesment (HTA) requires scientifically rigorous experimentation involving patients as subjects. HTA itself is required so that treatment given to patients will be both effective and efficient; this requirement is itself ethical in nature. At the same time it is essential that the methods used in HTA are ethically sound. Most healthcare researchers agree that the most effective and soundest method for assessing treatments is the randomised controlled trial (RCT). However, some researchers believe that the RCT is unethical, either in essence, or for use in some forms of medical research and HTA. Furthermore, many patients seem unable to understand the principles and purposes of the RCT, a factor which is highly detrimental for the validity of informed consent. Informed consent is the key to the ethics of medical research, both in most theories and in all codes of research conduct. Many RCTs therefore risk being unethical in practice, even if ethical in principle. AIM OF REPORT: To survey the main objections to the RCT and its alternatives. To assess the philosophical and methodological basis of these objections, and of the methods recommended for addressing them. To identify areas where objections are founded in social or cultural factors normally overlooked in ethical argument about the RCT methodology. To identify alternative arguments or methods which might resolve ethical conflicts in this area. HOW THE RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED: The methods used were adapted from systematic reviews in medicine. Systematic searches of Medline, Psychlit and Sociofile CD-ROM databases; hand-searches of the major journals in general medicine and surgery, medical ethics and philosophy; and searches of books were carried out. The literature survey was restricted to articles published or abstracted in English. A database of the most relevant and useful materials was compiled, and is accessible on the Internet (http://www.liv.ac.uk/sdthomps/page1.html). RESEARCH FINDINGS: UNDERSTANDING RCTS AND THEIR ALTERNATIVES: There is some evidence of difficulty in understanding the aims and methods of RCTs, and some disquiet about elements of the RCT methodologies. These objections are well known and much discussed, and concern the use of placebo, the continuation of trials after significant differentials in benefit or harm are apparent, and randomisation. CULTURAL OR RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS: There was an absence of evidence of cultural or religious objections to randomisation, placebo or other kinds of controlled prospective trials. This most likely reflects an absence of research rather than absence of objections. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)