The use of placebo as a control condition in clinical trials of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders continues to be an area of ethical concern. Typically, opponents of placebo controls argue that they violate the beneficent-based, “best proven diagnostic and therapeutic method” that the original Helsinki Declaration of 1964 famously asserted participants are owed. A more consequentialist, oppositional argument is that participants receiving placebo might suffer enormously by being deprived of their usual medication(s). Nevertheless, recent findings of potential for (...) suicidality in young people treated with antidepressants, along with meta-analyses suggesting that antidepressants add no significant clinical benefit over placebos, warrant a re-evaluation of the arguments against placebo. Furthermore, the nature of placebo treatment in short-term clinical trials is often not well understood, and lack of understanding can foster opposition to it. This paper will show how scientific justifications for placebo use are morally relevant. The fundamental ethical importance of placebo controls is discussed in relation to several aspects of clinical trials, including detection of adverse events, accurate assessment of clinical benefit, advancing understanding of the heterogeneity of depression and anxiety disorders and respecting informed consent requirements. Prohibiting the use of placebo controls is morally concerning in that such prohibitions allow for the possibility of serious adverse public health consequences. Moral worries that research participants receiving placebo are being unduly jeopardised will be shown to be exaggerated, especially in relation to the net benefits for end-users to be gained from the quality of data resulting from using placebo controls. (shrink)

The late John Burrow, one of the most stimulating promoters of the distinctively interdisciplinary enterprise that is Intellectual History, was a vital member of what has become known as the ‘Sussex School’. In exploring the resonances of his singular and richly idiosyncratic contribution, this article places his unique historical sensibility within a series of interpretative contexts, demonstrating the vitality of writings that will continue to inspire and inform scholarship in the field for decades to come. ☆ The Sussex Centre for (...) Intellectual History Lecture delivered at the University of Sussex on 21st October, 2010. I am deeply indebted to Noël Sugimura for reading and commenting on an earlier version of the present essay with her customary sense and sensibility. (shrink)

Lines 4–5 of Antiphanes fr. 46 KA, an Athenian view of the stereotypical Spartan life, present several difficult, interrelated problems. The text as printed by Kassel- Austin is grammatically intelligible, although problematic, since καταρονέω is used absolutely elsewhere in old or middle comedy only at Amph.

This work represents an attempt to assess the nature and extent of Moore's influence on twentieth century philosophy. The essays it contains were all written in or after 1958, the year of Moore's death, by philosophers whom he knew and respected. As such the writers were often able to highlight certain neglected aspects of his thought as well as ideas he never put in print. Though 10 of the 19 essays have appeared in print before, there are original papers by (...) Ryle, Ewing, William and Martha Kneale, Ayer, Lazerowitz and Urmson as well as somewhat longer studies by Kennick, Greig and Redpath. Together they deal with practically every aspect of Moore's metaphysical and ethical views, his often misunderstood philosophy of common sense, and the special methodology he thought particularly appropriate for investigating philosophical problems. In addition to special treatises on his views on utilitarianism, the naturalistic fallacy, free will, and propositions, the book is introduced with the delightful biographical study Braithwaite did for the Proceedings of the British Academy. The editors see Moore's writings not only as a model of the standard of exactness and refinement of thought one has come to expect of a careful philosopher, but as altering the direction of philosophical investigation. His method of analysis, and especially his ability to translate abstract formulations into concrete meanings, opened the eyes of philosophers to the fuzzy aspects and latent confusions in their own views and arguments. As his former pupils, the editors may be excused for feeling that philosophy after Moore will never be the same as before, but by bringing together this fine selection of essays they have done much to insure his contribution will not be forgotten.--A. B. W. (shrink)