[lit-ideas] Re: Health and Efficiency
- From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:32:11 +0100 (BST)
I assume the fact that the patients on the drug experienced less pain (and
fewer side effects!), was important. And actually I like their decision that
depriving the control group of a possible three months of life was unethical.
Judy Evans, Cardiff.
--- On Sat, 24/9/11, David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Health and Efficiency
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 7:41
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15039216
>
> I'm wondering how the tale strikes other people. To
> me the story is that a treatment gives a person possibly
> fourteen months to live, as opposed to the "dummy"
> group--what a term--of eleven. This is so significant,
> the trial has to be stopped early?
>
> I suppose the question I'm raising is how much of an
> improvement is newsworthy? Most patients live three
> days longer? Two weeks?
>
> David Ritchie,
> not counting days in
> Portland, Oregon
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub,
> vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
