Logue G, Wear S
Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, State University of New York at Buffalo, USA.
J Med Philos. 1995 Feb;20(1):57-64. doi: 10.1093/jmp/20.1.57.
The randomization ingredient in double-blind controlled experiments may be objectionable to patients who, in their desperation, come to such trials seeking a last chance of cure. Minogue et al., who view such a situation as inherently exploitive and undermining of patient autonomy, propose that such "desperate volunteers" instead be enrolled in the active arm, while other patients, less desperate and more committed to medical progress, continue to be randomized. Their view is critiqued as destructive of medical progress, inappropriate in its lack of clinical response to such patients, and fatally flawed by unrealistic notions of autonomy and voluntariness.
双盲对照实验中的随机分组因素可能会让那些在绝望中前来参加此类试验以寻求最后治愈机会的患者感到反感。米诺格等人认为这种情况本质上是剥削性的，会损害患者的自主权，他们建议将这些“绝望的志愿者”纳入实验组，而其他不那么绝望且更致力于医学进步的患者则继续进行随机分组。他们的观点被批评为破坏医学进步、对这类患者缺乏临床反应且因不切实际的自主性和自愿性观念而存在致命缺陷。
