The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Semmelweis’s methodology from the modern stand-point: intervention studies and causal ontology

På svenska

Author

Summary, in English

Semmelweis’s work predates the discovery of the power of randomization in medicine by almost a century. Although Semmelweis would not have consciously used a randomized controlled trial (RCT), some features of his material—the allocation of patients to the first and second clinics—did involve what was in fact a randomization, though this was not realised at the time. This article begins by explaining why Semmelweis’s methodology, nevertheless, did not amount to the use of a RCT. It then shows why it is descriptively and normatively interesting to compare what he did with the modern approach using RCTs. The argumentation centres on causal inferences and the contrast between Semmelweis’s causal concept and that deployed by many advocates of RCTs. It is argued that Semmelweis’s approach has implications for matters of explanation and medical practice.

Publishing year

2009

Language

English

Pages

204-209

Publication/Series

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences

Volume

40

Issue

3

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Elsevier

Topic

  • Philosophy, Ethics and Religion

Keywords

  • intervention study
  • randomized controlled trial
  • internal validity
  • external validity
  • cause
  • Semmelweis
  • ontology

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1369-8486