[s1artibartfast]

Not trying to invalidate your experience, but I think it is interesting and disagree.

I suspect there are some people with different philosophies that that sit better with this sorta thing.

It seems like you feel guilt not only for the harm you cause, but the harm you fail to prevent. Do you apply this logic to other parts of your life?

How do you feel about the trolley problem, were you have to kill some to save others?

How do you feel about the moral imperative of doctors to do no harm versus a utilitarian approach of maximize lives saved?

[protomyth]

I don't feel guilt, I still feel rage. I didn't determine any of the parameters or rules of the trial so I have no guilt on me. I just observed that the control group is dead because of some belief that they provided value when we already knew exactly what was going to happen to them.

If you can prevent harm to others, then not doing so is just being an a$$. The trolley problem is just counting souls and really doesn't happen much in real life. The true problem is thinking the only choices are us/them versus everyone. I'm not a doctor so I have no idea how their ethics applies to their professional decisions.

[FrontierPsych]

This does not happen in a vacuum - it is not about this group at all. It is all about the future and if this will put a stop to a lot more people dying in the future. If it is only going to save 20 people a year, it hardly matters, but if 1,000,000 people will be saved every year, that's different story.

I don't know how bit the groups were, but if you have 500 people in the control group and 150 die, and you save 1,000,000 per year, that is a great trade-off.

Plus, when you go into this experiment, you know you it is an experiment and know in advance it is a 50/50 proposition that you will get the drug/placebo, but at least you have a 50% chance. Better than no chance. And personally, which normally I hate personal experiences, but personally, I wouldn't mind giving up my life in a test if I know I might have a 50% chance of getting the drug, but if not, I save 1,000,000 people a year (or whatever it is).

It's like being in the army. If you are the commander, the general, you might have to send 5,000 men charging up a hill that you know is well-defended and 80% will die, but you are using it as a diversionary tactic and take 80,000 men towards your real objective and you win it, then too bad for the 5,000 men. It's just the way things are. And if someone doesn't have the stomach to be the general, then they shouldn't be the general and look for another line of work.

That's how I see it.

[dekhn]

Control groups exist because they get us closer to global optimality.

We can't eliminate suffering and dying of untreated people but it's generally considered ethical to eliminate suffering and dying of many while withholding that treatment from a subgroup of the study ("allowing them to die" by not taking action, rather than the "causing them to die" by taking action).

as long as that selection is done randomly and "fairly" I think it's an entirely acceptable risk. There have been trials that were truly badly run, and people died and suffered more than necessary, due to mistakes (often amateur ones) in the protocol. I'm more concerned about those types of deaths.

[s1artibartfast]

Thanks for clarifying your position