Abstract
Clinical equipoise is a core concept in the ethics of research involving human participants. It is an ethical precondition for the permissibility of enrolling patients in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). According to Freedman, a state of clinical equipoise obtains when there exists “an honest, professional disagreement among expert clinicians about the preferred treatment” (Freedman, New England Journal of Medicine, 317(3), 144, 1987). Historically, the concept evolved in response to the question: how can a physician, consistent with the duty of care to the patient, offer her enrollment in a randomized controlled trial? Clinical equipoise addresses this ethical difficulty, in part, through the recognition that a physician’s judgment is drawn from, and constrained by, the realm of professional knowledge. When there is disagreement in the professional community as to the preferred treatment, random allocation to one or other treatment in an RCT is consistent with the physician’s duty of care to the patient.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Crouch, R. A., & Arras, J. D. (1998). AZT trials and tribulations. Hastings Center Report, 28(6), 26–34.
Freedman, B. (1987). Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 317(3), 141–145.
Fried, C. (1974). Medical experimentation: Personal integrity and social policy. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Hellman, S., & Hellman, D. S. (1991). Of mice but not men: Problems of the randomized clinical trial. New England Journal of Medicine, 324(22), 1585–1589.
Kukla, R. (2007). Resituating the principle of equipoise: Justice and access to care in non-ideal conditions. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 17(3), 171–202.
London, A. J. (2000). The ambiguity and the exigency: Clarifying ‘standard of care’ arguments in international research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 25(4), 379–397.
London, A. J. (2007). Two dogmas of research ethics and the integrative approach to human-subjects research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32(2), 99–116.
Lurie, P., & Wolfe, S. M. (1997). Unethical trials of interventions to reduce perinatal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus in developing countries. New England Journal of Medicine, 337, 853–856.
Marquis, D. (1983). Leaving therapy to chance. Hastings Center Report, 13(4), 40–47.
Miller, F. G., & Brody, H. (2003). A critique of clinical equipoise: Therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials. Hastings Center Report, 33(3), 19–28.
Miller, P. B., & Weijer, C. (2003). Rehabilitating equipoise. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 13(2), 93–118.
Miller, P. B., & Weijer, C. (2006). Trust based obligations of the state and physician-researchers to patient-subjects. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(9), 542–547.
Peto, R., Pike, M. C., Armitage, P., Breslow, N. E., Cox, D. R., Howard, S. V., et al. (1976). Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design. British Journal of Cancer, 34, 585–612.
Schafer, A. (1982). The ethics of the randomized clinical trial. New England Journal of Medicine, 307, 719–724.
Weijer, C., & Miller, P. B. (2004). When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits? Nature Medicine, 10(6), 570–573.
Further Readings
Weijer, C., Miller, P. B., & Graham, M. (2015). Duty of care and equipoise. In J. D. Arras, E. Fenton, & R. Kukla (Eds.), The Routledge companion to bioethics (pp. 200–214). New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this entry
Cite this entry
Horn, A.R., Weijer, C. (2016). Clinical Equipoise. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_84
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_84
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-09482-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-09483-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities