» Articles » PMID: 35431349

Broad Medical Uncertainty and the Ethical Obligation for Openness

Overview
Journal Synthese
Date 2022 Apr 18
PMID 35431349
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This paper argues that there exists a collective epistemic state of 'Broad Medical Uncertainty' (BMU) regarding the effectiveness of many medical interventions. We outline the features of BMU, and describe some of the main contributing factors. These include flaws in medical research methodologies, bias in publication practices, financial and other conflicts of interest, and features of how evidence is translated into practice. These result in a significant degree of uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of many medical treatments and unduly optimistic beliefs about the benefit/harm profiles of such treatments. We argue for an ethical presumption in favour of openness regarding BMU as part of a 'Corrective Response'. We then consider some objections to this position (the 'Anti-Corrective Response'), including concerns that public honesty about flaws in medical research could undermine trust in healthcare institutions. We suggest that, as it stands, the Anti-Corrective Response is unconvincing.

Citing Articles

[A conceptual framework for good preventive practices (or for quaternary prevention)].

Tesser C Cad Saude Publica. 2024; 40(8):e00068123.

PMID: 39292133 PMC: 11405023. DOI: 10.1590/0102-311XPT068123.


How denialist amplification spread COVID misinformation and undermined the credibility of public health science.

Morris R J Public Health Policy. 2024; 45(1):114-125.

PMID: 38388891 DOI: 10.1057/s41271-023-00451-4.


A Taxonomy of Non-honesty in Public Health Communication.

Brown R, de Barra M Public Health Ethics. 2023; 16(1):86-101.

PMID: 37151785 PMC: 10161520. DOI: 10.1093/phe/phad003.

References
1.
Steckelberg A, Hulfenhaus C, Kasper J, Muhlhauser I . Ebm@school--a curriculum of critical health literacy for secondary school students: results of a pilot study. Int J Public Health. 2009; 54(3):158-65. DOI: 10.1007/s00038-008-7033-1. View

2.
Greenhalgh T, Howick J, Maskrey N . Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis?. BMJ. 2014; 348:g3725. PMC: 4056639. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g3725. View

3.
Kemp R, Prasad V . Surrogate endpoints in oncology: when are they acceptable for regulatory and clinical decisions, and are they currently overused?. BMC Med. 2017; 15(1):134. PMC: 5520356. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0902-9. View

4.
Boas P, Spagnuolo R, Kamegasawa A, Braz L, do Valle A, Jorge E . Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: what about in 2011? The next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012; 19(4):633-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01877.x. View

5.
Altman D, Moher D, Schulz K . Harms of outcome switching in reports of randomised trials: CONSORT perspective. BMJ. 2017; 356:j396. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j396. View