Barnhill Anne, Miller Franklin G
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
J Med Philos. 2015 Feb;40(1):69-82. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu043. Epub 2014 Dec 10.
In a recent article in this Journal, Shlomo Cohen and Haim Shapiro (2013) introduce the concept of "comparable placebo treatments" (CPTs)--placebo treatments with biological effects similar to the drugs they replace--and argue that doctors are not being deceptive when they prescribe or administer CPTs without revealing that they are placebos. We critique two of Cohen and Shapiro's primary arguments. First, Cohen and Shapiro argue that offering undisclosed placebos is not lying to the patient, but rather is making a self-fulfilling prophecy--telling a "lie" that, ideally, will become true. We argue that offering undisclosed placebos is not a "lie" but is a straightforward case of deceptively misleading the patient. Second, Cohen and Shapiro argue that offering undisclosed CPTs is not equivocation. We argue that it typically is equivocation or deception of another sort. If justifiable, undisclosed placebo use will have to be justified as a practice that is deceptive in most instances.
在本期刊最近的一篇文章中,什洛莫·科恩和海姆·夏皮罗(2013年)引入了“可比安慰剂治疗”(CPTs)的概念——即具有与它们所替代药物相似生物学效应的安慰剂治疗——并认为医生在开出处方或给予CPTs时未透露它们是安慰剂,并非具有欺骗性。我们对科恩和夏皮罗的两个主要论点进行了批判。首先,科恩和夏皮罗认为提供未公开的安慰剂并非对患者说谎,而是在制造自我实现的预言——说出一个理想情况下会成真的“谎言”。我们认为提供未公开的安慰剂并非“谎言”,而是直接欺骗误导患者的情况。其次,科恩和夏皮罗认为提供未公开的CPTs并非含糊其辞。我们认为这通常是另一种形式的含糊其辞或欺骗。如果未公开使用安慰剂是合理的,那么必须将其作为在大多数情况下具有欺骗性的做法来进行论证。