Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dicomed.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mgnetp!dicomed!stryker
From: stryker@dicomed.UUCP (d. j. stryker)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.women
Subject: Re: Breast Cancer Treatment.
Message-ID: <547@dicomed.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Jul-85 11:02:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: dicomed.547
Posted: Tue Jul 16 11:02:29 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 06:11:59 EDT
References: <1765@aecom.UUCP> <1271@mnetor.UUCP> <673@homxb.UUCP>
Reply-To: stryker@dicomed.UUCP (d. j. stryker)
Organization: DICOMED Corp., Minneapolis
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.med:1721 net.women:6449
Summary: arrogant doctors...they're out there

In article <673@homxb.UUCP> hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) writes:
>While it seems objectionable and unfair to evaluate
>the effectiveness of medical treatments by assigning
>patients randomly to groups, there is no alternative
>if the evaluation is to be done correctly.
>
>While there were some previous claims that radical mastectomies
>were no better than lumpctomies, there was no proof, and
>thus the old treatment continued.
>
>Herman silbiger

There is no excuse for drivel such as this.  It SHOULD BE a doctor's
responsibility to inform his patients of their choices. 

What do you mean 'there is no alternative to randomly assigning treatment?
If the patients were informed in advance that they were being assigned a 
random treatment, and were made aware of what the differences in outcome
of the dice roll could mean to them, then it is acceptable.  If not, these
so called doctors should promptly roll an unbiased die, and if it comes up
1-5 their breasts should be removed.  If it comes up 6 ... well, use your
imagination.

				Don

p.s.  The original posting does't tell whether or not patients were informed
that they were to recieve a random treatment.  Were they?