The “golden-rule” test states the familiar tenet: treat others as you want to be treated. With this test, the moral agent identifies the different stakeholders in a decision. Then the agent uses his or her own values to judge the possible choices from each stakeholder’s perspective. Consider the practicing physician as a moral agent deciding whether to recruit patients into this asthma study. Using his or her actual values, the physician judges such recruitment from the perspectives, say, of the participating physician, a company official, a subject receiving active drug, a subject receiving placebo, and other asthmatics. The stakeholders most likely to be harmed deserve careful consideration. This asthma study obviously risked most harm to the subjects receiving placebo. As the study report attests, the harm turned out to be significant. Compared to subjects receiving any active drug, subjects receiving placebo had four or more times the risk of intervention failure (4 to 11% vs 44%, respectively) and more than twice the risk for adverse events (2 to 4% vs 9%). And clinical deterioration on placebo occurred quickly—in a median time of just 40 days.1 A physician’s values, based on the fiduciary duty to patients, typically include continuity of effective therapy and avoidance of unnecessary medical risks. Such values applied from the perspective of a subject receiving placebo argue strongly against the physician’s recruiting patients into this study.