Had he agreed to take part in a clinical trial? If so, as previously described, some participants would have received a placebo without their knowledge. Otherwise to prescribe a placebo to a serious ill person would be completely unethical.
About 30 years ago, I was admitted to hospital for a minor op. 2 days later,I was constantly asking for more pain killers. Eventually the nurse admitted that some batches of the tablets were "real" painkillers, and others were placebos. The fact that really astounded me was that she said that the only people who knew which batches were which were the manufacturers of the drugs. Who told the truth, who told lies?
As general principle people should be informed as to the reality of any treatment they are offered. I see no reason for a doctor, or anyone else, to prescribe a placebo in this day and age. Homeopathy makes unsubstantiated claims, beyond any placebo effect, and should be banned.
I don't think they would allow that today. The fact that no body knew which was which other than the manufacturers is a standard double blind procedure to eliminate a subconscious, or other, transfer of information to the participants that might skew the results.
I think you have to decide if you want this discussion to be about ethics or semantics. You've confused the two now in my opinion. Re placebos, it would be interesting to know if those who were prescribed placebos experience the side effects they are told they might were the drugs real. Do patients not only get better but experience the side-effects as, after all, it is all in the mind? As regards the ethics of lying, it partly depends on whether or not you regard all human interaction as collaborative or a game in which there are winners and losers. In the latter case, misleading people is part and parcel of a winning strategy. If your mother gives you a horrible present and asks if you like it, it is normally accepted form to say that you do. If your wife cooks you a fairly horrible meal and asks how it is, you generally smile and say it's marvellous (and hope that deep down she knows it isn't and won't do it again.) In both of these "games", it is better to lie as they are repetitive games and telling the truth will probably ensure that you lose the next round.
It's a bit of a greY area. If someone gives you a crap gift then actually it's not the gift that you should be grateful for its the fact that person thought of you and that in itself is the gift not the gift itself. Placebos I have taken place in a clinical trial . I was told I would either be given the drug or a placebo. Even the doc/ surgeon did not know what he was administering . BUT I was fully aware of this when I signed up for it. I got better. The second round I was given the drug. At the end of about 3 years of great results I found out I was not given a placebo at all but the drug all along. My GP is an NHS doctor and and Homeopath !! Work that one out! He practises both. I have always rather someone told me the blunt truth no matter how nasty and crap it is. I'd rather deal and act on the truth then deal with a lie. A friend once asked me if I saw her husband cheating or found out he was would I tell her . ( he was prone to it) I said to her I knew there is always a good chance of the GF or wife to say your lying or making it up and going into denial. I said to her even if I suspected she would turn on me or dismiss it I would tell her and I wouldn't pull the wool over her eyes . I'd rather risk loosing her then lie to her and be found out later on that I knew something or had lied. Same as when my Grandad was dying. Everyone was bluffing and saying he would soon be home to each other. I knew otherwise. I marched up to the sister and asked to be told the full truth no crap. I was then told the full truth that he was dying and it was being managed and it was not if but when. I then went back and told family who some couldn't handle it but I thought well its better to know so we could say what we needed to and also make sure he was ok and if he needed anything doing. My Grandfather knew he's not stupid and I think he appreciated people asking him rather then bullshitting about stuff which was happening. If I was in his place I'd rather be told I was dying so I could sort stuff out and say what I had to say . The only time I would not be so blunt is if it was a child . In that case I know it was terrify them so then I would concentrate on just being there for them and making them feel safe. I'd never tell a child actually your going to die. I'd just ensure they felt safe and comfy.
In reply to #12. I believe there is harm done but not necessarily at the moment of the individuals greatest need just before death for example. I mean in the wider sense that the sooner we can all take a more scientific view of the world the better off we will all be. Clearly my view has a wider scope than the initial example but i think they are more closely related than it might appear. The dying/unwell person may well be soothed but consider everyone else that knows them or hears their story of how a wonderful thing happened. Aren't they more likely to allow the perpetuation of the religion or homeopathy or whatever the fix was. At this level i believe it is in fact all harmful.
Thread drift. It happens :smile: The list of side-effects is not there for purely clinical reasons. They are there for legal reasons - specifically, for financial liability protection - as well. (Arguably that is its sole purposes for being there.) The list will include things that may have been found during clinical trials but it's a certainty they include things that can come up in legal trials too, :wink: If you accept that the intended effect can be achieved through placebos, you can be doubly sure that side-effects can be experienced as well. Heh. Even in those example of "white lies", is the intention to spare the feelings of the female relative altruistic, mutually beneficial or purely selfish? You have outlined the heart of the problem in a couple of everyday nutshells :biggrin:
I believe he was aware, that's why i asked him to reconsider and make shure he got chemo. Unfortunately it's history now. Steve
The discussion started off being about ethical issues, artificially defined. Then I tried to develop it by introducing a semantic dimension, which is what nearly always happens in real-world situations. Whatever words you use in ethical discussions and however carefully you define terms, people seem to have different understandings of what terms mean. 'True' and 'false' have simple, clear meanings in logic, but surely 'truth' and 'lies' have more complex meanings in ethics.
Yes I see that can happen sometimes. But more common surely are situations where you want to preserve your reputation for telling the truth, and the trust of people you deal with. If people discover you have told them lies, they will disbelieve you the next time. The momentary gain from the lie is far outweighed by the long-term damage. And that is the reason why lying is a bad thing in principle, to be generally avoided. This discussion is of course about whether there might be legitimate exceptions to that general principle, or not.
Personally I agree with you. I could handle being told truthfully I am soon to die, but I would be outraged to be lied to. The trouble is, not everyone takes the same view as us, He11. Quite a lot of people apparently prefer not to know harsh, sad truths and would rather keep pretending - so should truth be forced upon them regardless? Or should they be spared distress by concealing the truth?
Interesting point. There is (as rightly you point out) a much wider, very long-term issue apart from the short-term gain and the medium-term reputational harm of lying. It is the corrosive effect on all human affairs of untruthful practices being normalised and considered acceptable, including the examples of placebos and mumbo-jumbo. There is an argument that we would all be better off sticking strictly to facts and reality. I find the notion attractive, but I am afraid a lot of people take a much more compromised approach!
Side effects could come from placebo treatment - they could even be an example of a nocebo effect. On holiday a few years ago I got talking to an oncologist, who said that some cancer patients start throwing up even before they start the chemotherapy drugs, or before the drugs could have caused nausea, simply because most people know that nausea and vomiting are common side effects of chemotherapy, and they so fully expect to suffer those symptoms. There's definitely a mind-body thing going on there. There have been a few fascinating articles in New Scientist a few years ago about the nocebo effect: 13 more things: The nocebo effect - 02 September 2009 - New Scientist. (A longer article in the 13 May 2009 edition is sadly only accessible to subscribers). Another area that I think would be really worth investigating in terms of the placebo effect, homeopathy etc, is the use of such "treatments" in veterinary medicine. I find it harder to believe that a dog or cat or horse could have the same kind of mind/body placebo effect as a human who is much more conscious of what they are doing or why. Anyone any ideas about the research out there on placebo effects in animals?
In the examples, the race mechanic, the doctor and the priest are all telling their untruths for supposedly worthy motives. Their intentions are beneficial, and they mean no harm. Apparently. But consider the situations a little more closely. In each case, the liars are protecting their own positions, saving themselves effort, and keeping themselves in paid employment. Perhaps their lies are just as much self-serving as helpful to the rider/patient/dying man. There is a slippery slope effect - once you think you have found an ethical justification for deceiving others, and get accustomed to doing so for their benefit, you can gradually slip down into lying partly or wholly for your own benefit.
Yes; the research should be done by the Fraud Squad. Homeopathic medicine for animals is a straightforward scam. No ethical dilemma here, move along please.
Interesting. So you do indeed seem to subscribe to the explanation that it is game theory in operation rather than higher ethics. You choose not to lie to preserve your reputation which is an asset in a repetitive game. There are no ethics involved here. It is purely a question of strategy. Your reputation gives you a certain amount of power in an interaction with other people. To destroy it, weakens this power. But this doesn't answer the question as to whether people have a moral right to the truth. Clearly society at large doesn't think they do. Subterfuge is part and parcel of everyday living. Withholding information increases your power, or certainly diminishes the power of the other party. An antiques dealer selling an item for £500 is not about to tell you that he picked it up in a boot sale for £20 as this would have an influence on his negotiating position. Are you entitled to know this? Clearly not. Life is generally a collaborative experience and involves your influencing others to get an outcome that you feel is beneficial. That might be for yourself, or it might be for something you perceive as a greater good. Either way, the control of information is something we do on a daily basis to get the outcomes we want. How we choose to control that information varies on a case by case basis. I do feel that "honesty is the best policy" but to be frank, it's probably been a shortcoming in my life. I seem to play the game by rules to which others don't subscribe - more fool me. Look at how whistleblowers are treated - generally very poorly, when you'd think that by speaking the truth, they should be applauded. Sadly, they are often seen as unreliable traitors to their social group.
Surprised you need permission from anyone other than Pete, maybe to get your head out of his arse I love a good debate but this place is more circular, with set in stone views never for shifting or even having the courtesy to accept others dont see the world they do. Now you see, this is an example of saying what you think and not appearing to sit on the fence picking up splinters while all the time undermining others opinions and views without actually being clear on yours. Or just generally sniping the. Refusing to admit you were. Rare for me to be so direct, but I don't possess an inch if the intellect you and some other do so have to go with that HTH
Well I think it’s really simple. A lie is a lie, designed to mislead, misguide and deceive, usually so those who tell them can benefit from it or don’t have the backbone to tell the truth and face the music if that’s the case. The truth on the other hand is exactly that, trouble is sometimes the truth can be uncomfortable and I can understand that but there are ways of breaking bad news to people. I know I would never want to be lied to. So why do it to others? However there are those who wouldn’t know the truth if it stood up and bit them, and some of course hide from the truth because they don’t really want to know it!
