Interactive technology assessment (iTA) provides an answer to the ethical problem of normative bias in evaluation research. This normative bias develops when relevant perspectives on the evaluand (the thing being evaluated) are neglected. In iTA this bias is overcome by incorporating different perspectives into the assessment. As a consequence, justification of decisions based on the assessment is provided by stakeholders having achieved agreement. In this article, agreement is identified with wide reflective equilibrium to show that it indeed has the potential (...) of justifying decisions. We work out several conditions for this agreement to be achievable and just. (shrink)

Interactive technology assessment is a novel approach to evaluating (health) technology, which philosophically draws from the works of Rawls and Habermas. That is, it seeks to organise a practical setting for discursive ethics in order to find a legitimate basis for policy to be pursued when the technology under scrutiny features a moral controversy. Interactive technology assessment involves a cycle of interviews with all stakeholders, who are explicitly asked to respond (anonymously) to the concerns and issues raised by other participants. (...) This cycle is completed repeatedly, so that a process of vicarious learning develops. This process aims at identifying issues agreed and disagreed upon, on the basis of which widely endorsed policy recommendations can be formulated. This chapter involves an interactive technology assessment of paediatric cochlear implantation. The rationale, the design, and the results are explained, as well as the main ethical aspects of the procedure. (shrink)

Health technology assessment (HTA) is often biased in the sense that it neglects relevant perspectives on the technology in question. To incorporate different perspectives in HTA, we should pursue agreement about what are relevant, plausible, and feasible research questions; interactive technology assessment (iTA) might be suitable for this goal. In this way a kind of procedural ethics is established. Currently, ethics too often is focussed on the application of general principles, which leaves a lot of confusion as to what really (...) is the matter in specific cases; in an iTA clashes of values should not be approached by use of such ethics. Instead, casuistry, as a tool used within the framework of iTA, should help to articulate and clarify what is the matter, as to make room for explication and consensus building. (shrink)

Health technology assessment (HTA) is often biased in the sense that it neglects relevant perspectives on the technology in question. To incorporate different perspectives in HTA, we should pursue agreement about what are relevant, plausible, and feasible research questions; interactive technology assessment (iTA) might be suitable for this goal. In this way a kind of procedural ethics is established. Currently, ethics too often is focussed on the application of general principles, which leaves a lot of confusion as to what really (...) is the matter in specific cases; in an iTA clashes of values should not be approached by use of such ethics. Instead, casuistry, as a tool used within the framework of iTA, should help to articulate and clarify what is the matter, as to make room for explication and consensus building. (shrink)

Health technology assessment consists of thesystematic study of the consequences of theintroduction or continued use of the technology in aparticular context, with the explicit objective toarrive at a judgment of the value or merit of thetechnology. Ideally, it is aimed at assessing allaspects of a given technology or group oftechnologies, including non-technical, e.g.socio-ethical, aspects. However, methods for assessingsocio-ethical implications of health technology arerelatively undeveloped and few mechanisms exist totake action based on the results of such evaluations.Still, the examples of cochlear (...) inplants and other cases illustratethat HTA is not a matter of merely collecting thefacts about a technology. The facts must beplausible and relevant from a particular framework,which is not always shared by different groups. It ishere that socio-ethical aspects are encountered. Ifhealth technology assessment aims to enhance theaccountability of the decision making processregarding funding and use of health technology, it isa major challenge to assessors of health technologiesto deal adequately with existing value pluralism. Inthis respect interactive evaluation may have somethingto offer. (shrink)

From 1991 to 1994 the Dutch Health Insurance Council financed research on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO). This is a technique for providing cardiopulmonary bypass to patients with pulmonary and/or cardiac failure. Most often, these patients are premature neonates. During ECMO, blood is drained from the right atrium, pumped along a membrane where gas exchange takes place, and then redirected to the aorta. To prevent blood clotting, heparin is added. However, with the heparin added, the risk of hemorrhage is considerably increased. (...) Therefore, both the chance of surviving and the chance of severe disability are higher with ECMO than with conventional treatment (i.e., ventilator support). (shrink)

From 1991 to 1994 the Dutch Health Insurance Council financed research on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation . This is a technique for providing cardiopulmonary bypass to patients with pulmonary and/or cardiac failure. Most often, these patients are premature neonates. During ECMO, blood is drained from the right atrium, pumped along a membrane where gas exchange takes place, and then redirected to the aorta. To prevent blood clotting, heparin is added. However, with the heparin added, the risk of hemorrhage is considerably increased. (...) Therefore, both the chance of surviving and the chance of severe disability are higher with ECMO than with conventional treatment. (shrink)

A possible explanation for policy implementation failure is that the views of the policy’s target groups are insufficiently taken into account during policy development. It has been argued that involving these groups in an interactive process of policy development could improve this. We analysed a project in which several target populations participated in workshops aimed to optimise the utilisation of an expensive novel drug (interferon beta) for patients with Multiple Sclerosis. All participants seemed to agree on the appropriateness of establishing (...) a central registry of Multiple Sclerosis patients and developing guidelines. Nevertheless, these policy measures were not implemented. Possible explanations include (1) the subject no longer had high priority when the costs appeared lower than expected, (2) the organisers had paid insufficient attention to the perceived problems of parties involved, and (3) changes within the socio-political context. The workshops in which representatives of the policy’s target populations participated did not provide enough interactivity to prevent policy implementation failure. (shrink)