By DAVID SHAYWITZ, MD

Randomized control trials – RCTs – rose to prominence in the twentieth century as physicians and regulators sought to evaluate rigorously the performance of new medical therapies; by century’s end, RCTs had become, as medical historian Laura Bothwell has noted, “the gold standard of medical knowledge,” occupying the top position of the “methodologic heirarch[y].”

The value of RCTs lies in the random, generally blinded, allocation of patients to treatment or control group, an approach that when properly executed minimizes confounders (based on the presumption that any significant confounder would be randomly allocated as well), and enables researchers to discern the efficacy of the intervention (does it work better – or worse – than controls) and begin to evaluate the safety and side-effects.

The power and value of RCTs can be seen with particular clarity in the case of proposed interventions that made so much intuitive sense (at the time) that it seemed questionable, perhaps even immoral, to conduct a study. Examples include use of a particular antiarrhythmic after heart attacks (seemed sensible, but actually caused harm); and use of bone marrow transplants for metastatic breast cancer (study viewed by many as unethical yet revealed no benefit to a procedure associated with significant morbidity).

In these and many other examples, a well-conducted RCT changed clinical practice by delivering a more robust assessment of an emerging technology than instinct and intuition could provide.

Continue reading…

By PRADHEEP J. SHANKER, MD

Sadly, the case of Alfie Evans came to a close this week, as he passed away in his hospital room surrounded by his parents. The debate over the medical ethics involved goes on.

Ultimately, there are extensive moral, philosophical, and medical issues involved with the policies over these cases. They are complicated, messy, and often times heart wrenching. But let’s put some misconceptions aside to begin with, some propagated by the most extreme and emotional participants in this debate.

Those of us that took issue with the handling of this case for the most part do not believe the doctors involved were evil, murdering individuals. There was no malicious intent from the NHS or physicians involved. I am sure the physicians meant well, from their point of view.

A second point: this was not a case about preservation of resources for the greater good. In this case, the parents had found alternative sources to fund the care they wished for their son.  So those arguing that we need to make such decision to prioritize money for those that can be aided the most is largely off target, and not relevant to the case at hand. I also don’t believe that the single payer system of the NHS in England inherently caused their mistakes; I think any system that is blind to its own deficiencies could lead to such mistakes.

That said, what were the issues that were in dispute here?

First and foremost, what was the ultimate intent of the care providers in this specific case?  Both sides basically admitted, early on, that Alfie’s prognosis was dire.  The reality is this child was likely going to die, and even the experts preferred by the parents readily admitted this in court documents.

Continue reading…