The placebos were administered for “psychological effects”, with GPs explaining that patients often demanded treatment or wanted reassurance.
Whist this may be understandable, what concerns researchers is that, even with the patient’s consent, the administration of even sugar pills and saline solutions (of which only 12 percent of doctors had done), it risks the trust between a patient and doctor. Whether or not the patient understands or knows that the ‘drug’ is ineffectual on a physical level, it is still deception.
The use of placebo drugs outside of clinical trials is often considered unethical and yet, quite shockingly, it seems to be a common practice.
The British Medical Association (BMA), the professional body of doctors, responded to the inquiry by saying that it opposed the administration of placebos.
“The BMA believes there are fundamental problems associated with doctors prescribing placebos. And in our view the unacknowledged use of placebos for patients with capacity is unethical,” they explained, “Prescribing and administering a placebo must entail some degree of patient deception because to maximise the placebo effect, a patient needs to believe that the ‘dummy’ treatment administered is real.
“Deceiving a patient, even where the doctor is acting in his or her best interests, obviously undermines trust and risks damaging the doctor-patient relationship.”
Does this mean then, that there is a split of interests between the doctors that believe in the satisfaction of the patient and the body that represents them?
By handling impure placebos, the danger lies in the risks that it may pose to unsuspecting patients. If they are not merely sugar or saline, then the concoction may not be entirely safe, even when the motives are in support of the patient.