Santosh Helekar wrote: "The physician who prescribes a placebo to his patient is engaging in deception. He is intentionally lying to the latter that he is administering a real treatment with a predictable effect, when he clearly knows that he is not. The ethics of such deception are questionable outside the confines of a scientific clinical trial. The latter circumstance is exceptional because a legally and ethically valid informed consent is obtained from all participants of a study."
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 19:44:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Mervyn Lobo <mervynal...@yahoo.ca> Ok, folks. This exact same debate is going on, on Tanzanet at the moment. One writer makes the same point as Santosh, but in a way that the non-scientific mind would find easier to understand. What the writer says, essentially, is that whether it is Western medicine or traditional, the medicine-man has to collect information. What may work for one patient, may not work for another. The bottom line being that the giant western multi-nationals have paid people to be guinea-pigs while researching the drug and its effects. When the traditional drug from the traditional healer does not work on you, guess what You are the guinea-pig. Mario clarifies: Tsk, tsk, tsk. The writer on Tanzan, if he was reported accurately, did not make the same point as Santosh, with all due respect. What Santosh said was that in a scientific study of an allopathic medication the guinea ...., ...er, human participants in a scientific study are voluntary and willing participants and are informed of the pros and cons of what they are participating in and give their consent before they are included. The way I understand it, the participants in a scientific study are thoroughly screened before being included and may be paid expenses for their travel and food but little else. They are not "paid guinea pigs" as this would create a conflict of interest. They are divided into groups with one group given the medication and the other given a placebo. The participants are not told which group they are in and who is being given the real drug and who is being given the placebo. Every detail of what is done is documented and the information collated and scientifically analyzed using state of the art statistical methodology. Some studies follow the patients for months, some for several years. Some drugs are tested in more than one study as a cross check with a prior study to see if the results can be replicated. The goal is to provide as objective information as possible to guide the physicians when they are considering the drug for their patients. When properly used, an allopathic drug will work the same for every patient, other things being equal. It is the physicians job to understand the pros and cons of every drug, its interaction with other drugs the patient may be taking and possible side effects, so that the drug works as it is supposed to within its tested probability of effectiveness. Nothing even approaching this happens when a non-allopathic practitioner "gathers information". With non-allopathic practitioners, the patient is not a scientifically controlled and watched guinea pig but a possible unintentional victim at the mercy of the practitioner. Fortunately, the vast majority of alternative medications and treatments do not have significant side effects as well, so, when they don't work, time and money is the issue, as well as what implications any delays may have on serious treatment of a serious ailment.
