Dummy pills
There is an ongoing debate about the merits and the ethics of using placebos, sometimes called ‘sugar pills’. The ‘placebo effect’ is well documented though not completely understood. It refers to the apparent benefits, both psychological and physiological, of taking a medication or receiving a treatment that you expect will improve your health, when in fact the tablet contains no active ingredients and the treatment has never been proven. Any benefit that arises from a placebo originates solely in the mind of the person taking it. The therapeutic effect can be either real and measurable or perceived and imagined.
The placebo effect is a headache for drug manufactures. ‘Guinea pig’ patients, that is to say, those who volunteer for a new treatment, may show positive health gains from the placebo effect that masks the response to the treatment. This has led to the introduction of doubleblind trials – experiments where neither the patient nor the healthcare professional observing the patient knows whether a placebo has been used or not. So, for example, in a ‘randomized control trial’ (RCT), patients are selected at random and half the patients are given the new medication and half are given a placebo tablet that looks just the same. The observer is also ‘blind’ to the treatment to avoid bias. If the observer knows which patients are receiving the ‘real’ treatment they may be tempted to look harder for greater health improvements in these people in comparison with those on the placebos.
Whilst the case for placebos in drug trials appears to be justified, there are ethical issues to consider when using placebos. In particular, the need to discontinue placebos in clinical trials in favour of ‘real’ medication that is found to work, and whether a placebo should ever be prescribed in place of a real treatment without the patient ever knowing. In the first circumstance, it would be unethical to deny patients a new and effective treatment in a clinical trial and also unethical to stop patients from taking their existing tablets so that they can enter a trial. These two ethical perspectives are easy to understand. What is perhaps less clear is the distinction between a placebo that may have therapeutic value and a ‘quack cure’ which makes claims without any supporting evidence.
Quackery was at its height at the end of the nineteenth century, when socalled men of medicine peddled fake remedies claiming that all manner of diseases and afflictions could be cured. The modern equivalent of these quack cures are ‘complementary and alternative medicine’ (CAM) which are unable to substantiate the claims they make. There are dozens of these treaments, though the bestknown are perhaps acupuncture, homeopathy, osteopathy and reflexology. There is anecdotal evidence from patients that these treatments are effective but no scientific basis to support the evidence. Whilst recipients of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) can find the treatment to be therapeutic, it is not possible to distinguish these benefits from the placebo effect. Consequently it is important not to turn to alternative therapies too early but to adhere to modern scientific treatments. Complementary therapies are by definition intended to be used alongside traditional medicine as an adjunct treatment to obtain, at the very least, a placebo effect. With either complementary or alternative therapies the patient may notice an improvement in their health and link it with the therapy, when in fact it is the psychological benefit derived from a bit of pampering in a relaxing environment that has led to feelings of improvement, or it could be nature taking its course.
Patients enter into a clinical trial in the full knowledge that they have a 50/50 chance of receiving the new drug or the placebo. An ethical dilemma arises when a placebo is considered as a treatment in its own right; for example, in patients whose problems appear to be ‘all in the mind’. Whilst a placebo is by definition harmless and the ‘placebo effect’ is normally therapeutic, the practice is ethically dubious because the patient is being deceived into believing that the treatment is authentic. The person prescribing the placebo may hold the view that the treatment can be justified as long as it leads to an improvement in the patient’s health. However, benevolent efforts of this type are based on a deception that could, if it came to light, jeopardize the relationship between the physician and the patient. It is a small step between prescribing a placebo and believing that the physician always knows best, thereby denying patients the right to judge for themselves what is best for their own bodies.
Whilst it is entirely proper for healthcare professionals to act at all times in patients’ best interests, honesty is usually the best policy where medical treatments are concerned, in which case dummy pills have no place in modern medicine outside of clinical trials. On the other hand, complementary medicine, whilst lacking scientific foundations, should not be considered unethical if it is able to demonstrate therapeutic benefits, even if only a placebo effect, as long as patients are not given false hopes nor hold unrealistic expectations, and are aware that the treatment remains unproven.