The question of expense raises doubts about how this plays out in a nationalized health care system like the one in Spain, where I live. Here, patients would be unaware of the costs of their medications and procedures, as they're all covered. Given that a significant percentage of the positive results patients experience are due to the placebo effect, one wonders whether it wouldn't be better in some cases to make patients pay something -- even a token fee -- for some treatments where this effect is more likely.

Placebos involve concealing the truth in the patient's best interest. If we accept that, where should we draw the line? Were GSK right to suppress trials that indicated that Seroxat performs no better than a Placebo, since now the treatment will be less effective? Or suppose there is good evidence that some racial stereotype is correct. Wouldn't people be happier if they do not know, so we should not publish? Or write books attacking astrology or god?

That raises a good question. Maybe people would be happier not knowing there are placebos out in the market. Medication causes so many side effects that usually it's not worth taking in the first case (and in some it causes the same symptoms they're trying to avoid). Would there be as many people suffering more for their condition at the cost of knowing they are getting *quality* health care - especially when it's so expensive? Yes there are medications out in the market that help, but everything we put into our bodies has it's effects and perhaps by the power of thinking we are taking something strong has powerful effects in and of itself - in that way we would be getting our money's worth. When it comes to racial stereotypes and religion, maybe it's better to know more so we can understand human nature but at the same time strengthen our moralistic, ethical, and spiritual nature.