Rights, responsibilities and NICE: a rejoinder to Harris

Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (8):462-464 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Harris’ reply to our defence of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence’s (NICE) current cost-effectiveness procedures contains two further errors. First, he wrongly draws a conclusion from the fact that NICE does not and cannot evaluate all possible uses of healthcare resources at any one time and generally cannot know which National Health Service (NHS) activities would be displaced or which groups of patients would have to forgo health benefits: the inference is that no estimate is or can be made by NICE of the benefits to be forgone. This is a non-sequitur. Second, he asserts that it is a flaw at the heart of the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as an outcome measure that comparisons between people need to be made. Such comparisons do indeed have to be made, but this is not a consequence of the choice of any particular outcome measure, be it the QALY or anything else

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,867

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A NICE fallacy.M. Quigley - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (8):465-466.
NICE rejoinder.J. Harris - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (8):467-467.
It's not NICE to discriminate.J. Harris - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (7):373-375.
Highlights from this issue.Thomas Douglas - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (5):257-257.
NICE is not cost effective.J. Harris - 2006 - Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (7):378-380.
NICE, Alzheimer's and the QALY.J. G. Taylor - 2007 - Clinical Ethics 2 (1):50-54.
Nice and not so nice.J. Harris - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (12):685-688.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-13

Downloads
25 (#620,189)

6 months
25 (#143,982)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?