Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Numbers inform the debate
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
Smith's editorial recognises the complexity of the issue of
informed consent and states that the BMJ is prepared to relax its absolutism.1 At the risk of being misunderstood
I would like to attempt to construct a decision theory model based on
certain explicit assumptions that may allow us to compute numerical values better to inform the debate. At the outset I accept the ethical
principle of non-exploitation so beautifully described by Mary
Warnock2; I also accept the importance of consumers' involvement (I was the founding father of the consumers' advisory group for clinical trials chaired by Mrs Hazel Thornton).
Let us anticipate 150 000 deaths from breast cancer in this country
over the next 10 years and let us make the conservative assumption that
we already possess a novel therapeutic adjuvant that in absolute terms
would reduce the risk of death by 6% over this period
in other words,
a response to recent correspondence Changing the BMJ's position on informed consent would be counterproductive Informed consent
a publisher's duty Trial subjects must be fully involved in design and approval of trials Studies that do not have informed consent from participants should not be published
Read all Rapid Responses