It would also improve the quality of the medical care that patients receive, not only by identifying what works best but also by identifying what doesn't work at all - and even more importantly, what causes more harm than good. So comparing treatment effectiveness helps physicians to honor another moral value at the heart of medicine, along with that of informed choice: do no harm.
Critics charge that comparative effectiveness research will lead to "one-size-fits-all" guidelines that cater to a non-existent average patient for the sake of making the system more efficient. In fact, patients will be empowered by rigorous, evidence-based recommendations that are specific to the needs of particular patient groups. Research on comparative effectiveness would provide data to help each patient make the best possible choice with his or her doctor.
Patients want the right to make decisions with their doctors in order to pursue what is in their own best interests. Choosing blindly is an empty right; choosing with evidence respects patients' rights and enhances quality. This is a case in which good ethics demands good facts.
