Honest question: would you be less bitter about your grandfathers' death if they had been given some unproven, entirely experimental risky drug...and then died immediately after because of said drug?
I'd feel much better about it. Because I know that they'd have been killed in the front line by a shell - not in the Paris latrines by cholera.
My father's father fought in the Battle of the Bulge. They weren't pussies back then, you know.
How would you feel about your grandparents being used as a few more numbers to confirm that a drug is not, in fact, effective or safe in treating prostate cancer?
Typically when you're trying to "confirm" something it means you think you know it anyway. No, I don't think any p-value is worth dying for.
Your turn. Honest question: here's a story by a UK woman who jumped for joy to learn her cancer had spread, because it meant she could get into a trial:
No need to get hostile. My girlfriend's mother died from a very aggressive cancer just last year - I'm well aware of the painful reality of both cancer and treatment.
Regarding my comment about confirmation, there are always points in any experiment where you basically know the outcome, but just need a few more datapoints to pass that magical p < 0.05 number. At that point, they are technically just killing people and wasting time.
Of course that is a terribly cynical viewpoint. You could easily reword it to sound much more positive. But I think my original point still stands.
There are always going to cases like the woman's above - it is inevitable. You can't immediately clear everyone for every drug. Some drugs are only effective when the cancer has progressed to a certain point. But barring technical problems, there just simply isnt enough money to pay for everyone to have every experimental treatment.
Triage and thresholding is an unfortunate necessity.
I'd feel much better about it. Because I know that they'd have been killed in the front line by a shell - not in the Paris latrines by cholera.
My father's father fought in the Battle of the Bulge. They weren't pussies back then, you know.
How would you feel about your grandparents being used as a few more numbers to confirm that a drug is not, in fact, effective or safe in treating prostate cancer?
Typically when you're trying to "confirm" something it means you think you know it anyway. No, I don't think any p-value is worth dying for.
Your turn. Honest question: here's a story by a UK woman who jumped for joy to learn her cancer had spread, because it meant she could get into a trial:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9193018/Back-to-work-after...
How do you feel about this situation? Is it by any chance a little too "Tuskegee" for your sensitive ethical vibrissae?