Switch to: References

Citations of:

NICE discrimination

Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (12):683-684 (2005)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Institutional design and moral conflict in health care priority-setting.Philip Petrov - 2024 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 27 (3):285-298.
    Priority-setting policy-makers often face moral and political pressure to balance the conflicting motivations of efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment. Using the conflict between these motivations as a case study can enrich the understanding of institutional design in developed democracies. This essay presents a cognitive-psychological account of the conflict between efficiency and rescue/non-abandonment in health care priority-setting. It then describes three sets of institutional arrangements—in Australia, England/Wales, and Germany, respectively—that contend with this conflict in interestingly different ways. The analysis yields at least three (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • An empirical ethics study of the coherence of NICE technology appraisal policy and its implications for moral justification.Victoria Charlton & Michael DiStefano - 2024 - BMC Medical Ethics 25 (1):1-22.
    Background As the UK’s main healthcare priority-setter, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has good reason to want to demonstrate that its decisions are morally justified. In doing so, it has tended to rely on the moral plausibility of its principle of cost-effectiveness and the assertion that it has adopted a fair procedure. But neither approach provides wholly satisfactory grounds for morally defending NICE’s decisions. In this study we adopt a complementary approach, based on the proposition that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Cost-Effectiveness and the Avoidance of Discrimination in Healthcare: Can We Have Both?Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2023 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 32 (2):202-215.
    Many ethical theorists believe that a given distribution of healthcare is morally justified only if (1) it is cost-effective and (2) it does not discriminate against older adults and disabled people. However, if (3) cost-effectiveness involves maximizing the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) added by a given unit of healthcare resource, or cost, it seems the pursuit of cost-effectiveness will inevitably discriminate against older adults and disabled patients. I show why this trilemma is harder to escape than some theorists think. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Bursting Bubbles? QALYs and Discrimination.Ben Davies - 2019 - Utilitas 31 (2):191-202.
    The use of Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in healthcare allocation has been criticized as discriminatory against people with disabilities. This article considers a response to this criticism from Nick Beckstead and Toby Ord. They say that even if QALYs are discriminatory, attempting to avoid discrimination – when coupled with other central principles that an allocation system should favour – sometimes leads to irrationality in the form of cyclic preferences. I suggest that while Beckstead and Ord have identified a problem, it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Trust and Altruism--Organ Distribution Scandals: Do They Provide Good Reasons to Refuse Posthumous Donation?A. Dufner & J. Harris - 2015 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 40 (3):328-341.
    A recent organ distribution scandal in Germany raises questions of general importance on which many thousands of lives may well depend. The scandal in Germany has produced reactions that are likely to occur whenever and wherever distribution irregularities occur and become public knowledge. After it had become known that physicians in three German hospitals were in the habit of manipulating records in order to fast-track their patients’ cases, the country experienced a decrease of available organs by a staggering 40% in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Disability Discrimination and Patient-Sensitive Health-Related Quality of Life.Lasse Nielsen - 2023 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 32 (2):142-153.
    It is generally accepted that morally justified healthcare rationing must be non-discriminatory and cost-effective. However, given conventional concepts of cost-effectiveness, resources spent on disabled people are spent less cost-effectively, ceteris paribus, than resources spent on non-disabled people. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that standard cost-effectiveness discriminates against the disabled. Call this thedisability discrimination problem.Part of the disability discrimination involved in cost-effectiveness stems from the way in which health-related quality of life is accounted for and measured. This paper offers and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Science, politics and regulation: The trust-based approach to the demarcation problem.Stephen John - 2021 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 90 (C):1-9.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Moral ambivalence towards the Cancer Drugs Fund.Ilias Ektor Epanomeritakis - 2019 - Journal of Medical Ethics 45 (9):623-626.
    The UK’s Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) was introduced in 2010 following the Conservative Party’s promise to address the fact that numerous efficacious cancer drugs were not available because of their cost ineffectiveness, as deduced by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. While, at face value, this policy appears only to promote the UK’s public welfare, a deeper analysis reveals the ethically unjustifiable inconsistencies that the CDF introduces; where is the analogous fund for other equally severe diseases? Have the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation