Home About us Articles Multimedia Search Instructions Login 
IF 2017: 1.596 (® Clarivate Analytics)
Total Cites: 7606
Q2 in Medicine, General & Internal
Follow Us
Follow Us
  • Users Online: 1754
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

 Table of Contents  
VIEWPOINT
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 128  |  Issue : 11  |  Page : 1555-1557

The Ethics of Prescription of Placebos to Patients with Major Depressive Disorder


1 Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore 169857; Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA
2 Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA

Date of Submission22-Mar-2015
Date of Web Publication26-May-2015

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shun-Jie Chua
Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore 169857

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0366-6999.157699

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Chua SJ, Pitts M. The Ethics of Prescription of Placebos to Patients with Major Depressive Disorder. Chin Med J 2015;128:1555-7

How to cite this URL:
Chua SJ, Pitts M. The Ethics of Prescription of Placebos to Patients with Major Depressive Disorder. Chin Med J [serial online] 2015 [cited 2018 Nov 15];128:1555-7. Available from: http://www.cmj.org/text.asp?2015/128/11/1555/157699

A placebo is usually defined as a pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder. [1] Placebos have been shown to be effective for patient treatment in surgery, [2] cardiology, [3] psychiatry, [4] primary care. [5] In recent years, it has also been considered for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) [6] as well. This is because anti-depressants used to optimize outcomes [7] in MDD have numerous adverse side effects and can be financially expensive for use while placebos have been reported to help patients with MDD without the high costs. However, the use of placebos faces ethical challenges which may limit its use. This article hopes to illustrate these challenges using the ethical model which consists of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice [8] to allow clinicians to inform the decision of using placebos for the treatment of MDD in patients.


  Autonomy Top


Autonomy is defined as the "personal rule of the self that is free from both controlling interferences by others and from personal limitations that prevent meaningful choice." [9] It differs from more commonly understood political autonomy. [10] Unlike political autonomy which may be present as long as there is liberal choice without coercion, autonomy in the context of clinical medicine requires physicians to provide the conditions for independent choice.

When patients come to physicians for guidance, they lack the knowledge to understand their condition and make informed decisions. To ensure patients have more autonomy, physicians have to present all the treatment options, explain the benefits and side effects of the therapies. This allows patients to make well-informed decisions. This makes the prescription of placebos for MDD challenging because this act implies deception. [11] This is because, during the clinical use of placebos, patients are rarely informed of its use because this information might reduce a placebo's therapeutic effect. [12] This means that the prescription of placebo will also infringe on patients' autonomy [13] when they are denied of truthful information to make the optimal treatment choice.


  Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, and the Double Effect Top


Beneficence refers to actions which promote the well-being of others. [14] In MDD, this would mean that a patient can go through a psychiatric evaluation to show an improvement in his clinical symptoms. Quantitatively, this can be indicated with the use of validated MDD scales like the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, [15],[16] Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale.

A closely related concept of beneficence is the nonmaleficence. Nonmaleficence refers to the aim to prevent harm. This is difficult to achieve in the modern context as there are few therapies which do not have side effects. It is hence important for doctors to balance the beneficence and nonmaleficence in a process known as rule of double effect. [17],[18] It is in this area that there is a greatest debate on the prescription of placebos for the treatment of major depression.

The decision to prescribe a medication for MDD should depend on the severity of the illness. If a patient has mild to moderate depression without suicidal risk and psychosis, it is possible to perform watchful waiting. [19] If a decision is made to prescribe medication, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) is the first-line treatment due to its efficacy, tolerability, and general safety in overdose. [20] Placebos have also been reported in studies to be another option for medication of MDD as they have a lower adverse effect profile and can be used at a lower financial cost. [6],[21]

At this juncture, before we start thinking that placebos are equivalent to SSRI in treating MDD, it should be noted that when treating MDD, there is significant difficulty in detecting suicidal risk. [22],[23],[24],[25],[26] This failure of detection might lead to the lack of treatment for patients who could have a higher risk of pursuing suicide. [27] If treatment is initiated with antidepressants, patients will experience lower suicidal ideation [28] and lower risk for suicide attempt and deaths. [29]

Another important deficit placebos have is the unpredictability of its effects. [30] This leads to "injustice" in the treatment when some patients more benefits than others. These points against placebos are especially important for major depression as it is an illness which requires a longer course of treatment.


  Discussion and Conclusion Top


Major depressive disorder is a common chronic psychiatric disorder which is frequently treated with SSRIs which are financially expensive while having a poor side effect profile. This has resulted in the suggestions for the use of placebos for MDD treatment as they have few side effects while being comparatively inexpensive.

However, this is an ethically challenging proposition. This is because the use of placebos threatens to reduce the autonomy, upset the balance of beneficence and nonmaleficence (i.e., double effect) and cause patients to suffer from injustice. This is because the usage of placebos implies deception of the patient. This deception threatens to reduce the autonomy of the patient and disrupts the therapeutic relationship between physicians and patients.

Placebo use might reduce harm to the patient (i.e., nonmaleficence), but it might also result in greater suicidal risks by the patient (i.e., beneficence) as suicidal risks often cannot be detected effectively. They will hence have a higher chance of pursuing suicide as compared to when they are on SSRI treatment. In addition, placebos do not have any evidence for reproducibility and its long-term effects, making it difficult to be used for a condition like MDD.

With the lack of evidence of improved efficacy and increased risk for patients in the use of placebos in the treatment of MDD, it is currently ethically inappropriate to prescribe placebos for MDD. This can be revisited in the future when more studies on this issue are presented.

 
  References Top

1.
Medical Dictionary 2013. Available from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/placebo. [Last cited on 2013 Mar 03].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Johnson AG. Surgery as a placebo. Lancet 1994;344:1140-2.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Bienenfeld L, Frishman W, Glasser SP. The placebo effect in cardiovascular disease. Am Heart J 1996;132:1207-21.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Laporte JR, Figueras A. Placebo effects in psychiatry. Lancet 1994;344:1206-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Thomas KB. The placebo in general practice. Lancet 1994;344:1066-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Blease C. Deception as treatment: The case of depression. J Med Ethics 2011;37:13-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Clinical Manifestations and Diagnosis of Depression; 2013. Available from: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/clinical-manifestations-and-diagnosis-of-depression?source=search_resultandsearch=major+depressionandselectedTitle=4-150. [Last cited on 2013 Mar 03].  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Gillon R. Medical ethics: Four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ 1994;309:184-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Autonomy vs. Beneficence; 2013. Available from: http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/ethics/content%20pages/fast_fact_auton_bene.htm. [Last cited on 2013 Mar 03].  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy); 2013. Available from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/autonomy-moral/. [Last cited on 2013 Mar 03].   Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
De Deyn PP, D′Hooge R. Placebos in clinical practice and research. J Med Ethics 1996;22:140-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Kolber AJ. Limited defense of clinical placebo deception, A. Yale Law Policy Rev 2007;26:75.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kolber A. How placebo deception can infringe autonomy. Am J Bioeth 2009;9:25-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Malani A. Regulation with placebo effects. Duke Law J 2008;58:411-72.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.
Ostad Haji E, Tadic A, Wagner S, Dragicevic A, Müller MJ, Boland K, et al. Association between citalopram serum levels and clinical improvement of patients with major depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2011;31:281-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Hamilton M. Comparative value of rating scales. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1976;3 1 Suppl 1:58-60.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Billings JA. Double effect: A useful rule that alone cannot justify hastening death. J Med Ethics 2011;37:437-40.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]    
18.
Andersson GB, Chapman JR, Dekutoski MB, Dettori J, Fehlings MG, Fourney DR, et al. Do no harm: The balance of "beneficence" and "non-maleficence". Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35 9 Suppl: S2-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Unipolar Depression in Adults and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs): Pharmacology, Administration, and Side Effects; 2013. Available from: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/unipolar-depression-in-adults-and-selective-serotonin-reuptake-inhibitors-ssris-pharmacology-administration-and-side-effects?source=search_resultandsearch=ssriandselectedTitle=1~150#H399779858. [Last cited on 2013 Jun 03].  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Unipolar Depression in Adults and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs): Pharmacology, Administration, and Side Effects; 2013. Available from: http://www.uptodate.com/contents/unipolar-depression-in-adults-and-selective-serotonin-reuptake-inhibitors-ssris-pharmacology-administration-and-side-effects?source=search_resultandsearch=ssriandselectedTitle=1~150#H399779858. [Last cited on 2013 Jun 03].  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Rief W, Nestoriuc Y, Weiss S, Welzel E, Barsky AJ, Hofmann SG. Meta-analysis of the placebo response in antidepressant trials. J Affect Disord 2009;118:1-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.
Goldney RD. Problems with suicide risk assessment. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2012;46:172-3.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.
Fowler JC. Suicide risk assessment in clinical practice: Pragmatic guidelines for imperfect assessments. Psychotherapy (Chic) 2012;49:81-90.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.
Fiedorowicz JG, Weldon K, Bergus G. Determining suicide risk (hint: A screen is not enough). J Fam Pract 2010;59:256-60.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    
25.
The Geezer's Dirty Dozen on Suicide Risk Assessment - The Practical Psychosomaticist; 2013. Available from: http://thepracticalpsychosomaticist.com/2012/03/27/the-geezers-dirty-dozen-on-suicide-risk-assessment/. [Last cited on 2013 Jun 03].  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Depression CPG_R14_FINAL.pdf; 2013. Available from: http://www.moh.gov.sg/content/dam/moh_web/HPP/Doctors/cpg_medical/current/2012/depression/Depression%20CPG_R14_FINAL.pdf. [Last cited on 2013 Jul 03].  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Friedman RA, Leon AC. Expanding the black box - Depression, antidepressants, and the risk of suicide. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2343-6.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]    
28.
Gibbons RD, Brown CH, Hur K, Davis J, Mann JJ. Suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressant treatment: Reanalysis of the randomized placebo-controlled studies of fluoxetine and venlafaxine. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2012;69:580-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]    
29.
Leon AC, Solomon DA, Li C, Fiedorowicz JG, Coryell WH, Endicott J, et al. Antidepressants and risks of suicide and suicide attempts: A 27-year observational study. J Clin Psychiatry 2011;72:580-6.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]    
30.
Experts Question Using Placebo Pills to Treat Children-NYTimes.com; 2013. Available from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/health/27plac.html?_r=0. [Last cited on 2013 Jul 03].  Back to cited text no. 30
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Autonomy
Beneficence, Non...
Discussion and C...
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2209    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded268    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal




京ICP备05052599号