dennis roberts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: it would only be unethical if a better alternative were available ... or
: even a possibly better alternative were available ... and the investigator
: or the one making the decision to give or not to give ... KNOWS this ...
: AND HAS the ability to give this treatment to the patient ... and does NOT
: do it
Anyone proposing a 1-tailed test is doing *exactly* this.
: because a treatment might be known to be better, through a logical
: deductive process or experimentation ... or potentially better ... does NOT
: lead to unethical practice if this treatment is not adopted ...
I would disagree. Once it's known to be better, everything else is
sub-standard.
: implementations of treatments have consequences ... other than impact of
: treatments ... there are COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH TREATMENTS and these costs
: have to be weighed in from a cost/benefit perspective (maybe even take into
: account IF the public WANTS this to be done) ... it is irresponsible NOT to
: take other things into consideration
I'm waiting for the thank you from Professor Rubin. FINALLY, people are
starting to take all possible consequences of their decisions into
consideration! I confess. I can't recall ever having factored costs into
account when performing a significance test. Maybe it's the nature of the
work I do.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
