Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence, ethics and inclusion: a broader base for NICE

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (hereafter NICE) was created in 1998 to give guidance on which treatments should be provided by the British National Health Service, and to whom. So it has a crucial role as an agent of distributive justice. In this paper I argue that it is failing to adequately explain and justify its decisions in the public arena, particularly in terms of distributive justice; and that this weakens its legitimacy, to the detriment of the National Health Service as a whole. I argue that this failure arises from the fact that NICE works within the frameworks of positivist science and liberal ethics, largely to the exclusion of other perspectives. This narrowness of view prevents NICE from properly connecting with the range of moral concerns represented in the population. I argue for NICE’s deliberations to become more inclusive, both in terms of epistemology, and also in terms of ethical perspectives. And I suggest a range of perspectives that could usefully be included. Finally I offer a framework of structures, philosophies and discussion process that will enable competing perspectives to be debated fairly and productively in this process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bentham, J. 1962. Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. In Utilitarianism, ed. M. Warnock. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berniker, E., and D. McNabb. 2006. Dialectical inquiry: A structured qualitative research method. Qualitative Report 11(4): 643–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, K. 2005. Not just for experts: The public debate about reprogenetics in Germany. Hastings Center Report 35(3): 42–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. 2009. Three ways to politicize bioethics. American Journal of Bioethics 9(2): 43–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. 1992. Quality and quantity in social research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, D. 2003. Individual good and common good. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46(4): 496–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C.W. 1971. The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culyer, A.J. 2005. Involving stakeholders in health care decisions the experience of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. Healthcare Quarterly 8(3): 56–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Culyer, A.J. 2006. NICE’s use of cost effectiveness as an exemplar of a deliberative process. Health Economics, Policy and Law 1(3): 299–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, N., and J. Sabin. 1997. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy & Public Affairs 26(4): 302–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Marco, J., and P. Ford. 2006. Balancing in ethical deliberation: Superior to specification and casuistry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31(5): 483–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P. 2001. Utilitarianism and the measurement and aggregation of quality-adjusted life years. Health Care Analysis 9(1): 69–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilardi, F. 2008. Delegation in the regulatory state: Independent regulatory agencies in Western Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E., and Y. Lincoln. 2004. Competing paradigms. In Approaches to qualitative research, ed. S. Nagy Hesse-Biber, and P. Leavy, 17–38. New York: Oxford University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. 2005. Its not NICE to discriminate. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(7): 373–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hasman, A. 2008. The accountability problem of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Medicine and Law 27(1): 83–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ipperciel, D. 2003. Dialogue and decision in a moral context. Nursing Philosophy 4(3): 211–221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuczewski, M. 2001. The epistemology of communitarian bioethics: traditions in the public debates. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22(2): 135–150.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E., C. Kulick, M. Ambrose, and M. de Vera Park. 1993. Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(2): 224–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohns, P., N. Doyle, F. Macbeth, D. Barnett, and C. Londson. 2009. 10 years of NICE: Still growing and still controversial. Lancet Oncology 10(4): 417–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. 1988. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, Y. 2000. Knowledge Management and Virtual Organisations. Hershey: IGP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milewa, T. 2005. Representation and legitimacy in health policy formulation at a national level: Perspectives from a study of health technology eligibility procedures in the United Kingdom. Health Policy 85(3): 356–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J.D. 1993. Constructing community: Moral pluralism and tragic conflicts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulhall, S., and A. Swift. 1996. Liberals and communitarians. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • NICE. 2008. Social value judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance, 2nd ed. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

    Google Scholar 

  • NICE. 2009. The guidelines manual. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palys, T. 2003. Research decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Scarborough: Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, S., and M. Rawlins. 2005. Quality, innovation and value for money. JAMA 294(20): 2618–2622.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rawlins, M.D. 2005. Pharmacopolitics and deliberative democracy. Clinical Medicine 5(5): 471–475.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockmore, T. 2005. On constructivist epistemology. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F.W. 1999. Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. 1992. Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor-Gooby, P. 2008. Trust and welfare state reform: the example of the NHS. Social Policy and Administration 42(1): 288–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, M., and A. Stone Sweet. 2002. Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. West European Politics 25(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, E., J. Farmer, J. Tucker, and H. Bryers. 2008. Informing debate or fuelling dispute? Media communication of reconfiguration in Scotland’s rural maternity care. Social Policy and Administration 42(7): 789–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trotter, G. 2006. Bioethics and liberal democracy: five warnings from Hobbes. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31(3): 235–250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, L. 2004. Bioethics in pluralistic societies. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7(2): 201–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P., A. Booth, A. Eastwood, and I.D. Watt. 2008. Deconstructing media coverage of Trastuzumab (Herceptin): An analysis of national newspaper coverage. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 101(3): 125–132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of British Columbia, 407-2263 Redbud Lane, Vancouver, BC, V6K 4V7, Canada

    Stephen Wilmot

Authors
  1. Stephen Wilmot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Wilmot.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wilmot, S. Evidence, ethics and inclusion: a broader base for NICE. Med Health Care and Philos 14, 111–121 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-010-9256-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-010-9256-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation