Many clinicians believe that allowing costs to influence clinical decisions is unethical. They are mistaken in this belief, because it cannot be ethical to ignore the adverse consequences upon others of the decisions you make, which is what 'costs' represent. There are, however, some important ethical issues in deciding what costs to count, and how to count them. But these dilemmas are equally strong with respect to what benefits to count and how to count them, some of which expose ethically (...) untenable assumptions about such widely-used clinical criteria as survival rates. One of the advantages of systematic cost-effectiveness analysis is that it exposes these hidden assumptions, and requires explicit judgements to be made about which ethical position is appropriate in a particular policy context. This should have the important incidental benefit of improving the accountability of policy-makers to the community they are serving. (shrink)

1.1. A major purpose in nationalizing the provision of health care in the UK was to affect its distribution between people, and, in particular, to minimize the impact of willingness and ability to pay upon that distribution. It has never been clear, however, what alternative distribution rule is to apply. There is no shortage of rhetoric about ‘equality’ and ‘need’, but most of it is vacuous, by which I mean it does not lead to any clear operational guidelines about who (...) should get priority and at whose expense. The closest we have got so far to such explicit guidelines has been the formulae which determine the geographical distribution of NHS funds, the driving force behind which is a notion of need based on relative mortality rates and on the demographic structure. The avowed objective is to bring about equal access for equal need irrespective of where in the UK you happen to be. (shrink)

Health care systems, irrespective of how they are financed, present the paradox that to some observers they appear as a major component of social benefits, while to other observers they seem both excessively costly and limited in their effectiveness. These differing perceptions may be explained in part by the diversity of the determinants of health and disease, only some of which are amenable to those preventive or therapeutic measures encompassed in a health care system--the majority of determinants being genetic, societal, (...) or else uninfluenced by those interventions at present available within a health service. The share of national resources which should be devoted to health care, and the method of raising resources, are primarily matters for political decision; but a national system has advantages both of economy and of comprehensiveness. But when it comes to allocation of resources within the established health budget, the knowledge and skills of health professionals are essential to informed decision-making. The possibilities depend critically on the 'state of the art' at a given time, as is illustrated by the radical changes over time in what could be done for patients with renal failure; and health professionals are likely to be most aware of current options, and of how to choose between them. More speculatively, they are also less likely to confuse the attitudes appropriate to providing a service with those required to run a business. (shrink)

This paper considers the problem that arises when the number of patients who need a resource exceeds the supply. An initial decision-making model is proposed that uses two essential criteria, medical prognosis and the priority of life-threatening situations. The model is then subjected to the criticism that it is grotesque to ignore questions relating to the value of, for example, a productive mother over against an aged recluse, and to treat them as having equal rights to access. It is argued (...) that this criticism need not be an expression of prejudice but may reflect a defendable view in which utilitarian considerations enter into the selection process provided that certain fundamental, or 'deontological' rights are observed for all. In the light of the discussion the model is modified in order to contain both a non-utilitarian feature that stresses the intrinsic importance of all persons, and a utilitarian feature that can allow one, in certain circumstances, to take consequences into account, especially those that follow from the 'irreplaceability' of some people. (shrink)