Impure placebo is a useless concept.

Placebos are allegedly used widely in general practice. Surveys reporting high level usage, however, have combined two categories, 'pure' and 'impure' placebos. The wide use of placebos is explained by the high level usage of impure placebos. In contrast, the prevalence of the use of pure placebos has been low. Traditional pure placebos are clinically ineffective treatments, whereas impure placebos form an ambiguous group of diverse treatments that are not always ineffective. In this paper, we focus on the impure placebo concept and demonstrate problems related to it. We also show that the common examples of impure placebos are not meaningful from the point of view of clinical practice. We conclude that the impure placebo is a scientifically misleading concept and should not be used in scientific or medical literature. The issues behind the concept, however, deserve serious attention in future research.

Clinical use of placebo treatments may undermine the trust of patients: a response to Gold and Lichtenberg.

There is an obvious need for a critical discussion of the concepts 'placebo' and 'placebo effect'. In a recent paper on the use of placebos in clinical medicine, Gold and Lichtenberg note the conceptual difficulties but use the terminology in a confused way throughout their paper. In our response, we demonstrate these problems with a few examples from their paper.

Medicine and the humanities--theoretical and methodological issues.

Engel's biopsychosocial model, Cassell's promotion of the concept "person" in medical thinking and Pellegrino's and Thomasma's philosophy of medicine are attempts to widen current biomedical theory of disease and to approach medicine as a form of human activity in pursuit of healing. To develop this approach further we would like to propose activity theory as a possible means for understanding the nature of medical practice. By "activity theory" we refer to developments which have evolved from Vygotsky's research on socially mediated mental functions and processes. Analysing medicine as activity enforces the joint consideration of target and subject: who is doing what to whom. This requires the use of historical, linguistic, anthropological, and semiotic tools. Therefore, if we analyse medicine as an activity, humanities are both theoretically and methodologically "inbound" (or internal) to the analysis itself. On the other hand, literature studies or anthropological writings provide material for analysing the various forms of medical practices.