Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 111–121

Evidence, ethics and inclusion: a broader base for NICE

Scientific Contribution
  • 131 Downloads

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.

Keywords

National health service National institute for health and clinical excellence Independent regulatory agency Legitimacy Media Positivist science Liberal ethics Communitarianism Constructionism Dialectic Pluralism 

References

  1. Bentham, J. 1962. Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. In Utilitarianism, ed. M. Warnock. London: Collins.Google Scholar
  2. Berniker, E., and D. McNabb. 2006. Dialectical inquiry: A structured qualitative research method. Qualitative Report 11(4): 643–664.Google Scholar
  3. Braun, K. 2005. Not just for experts: The public debate about reprogenetics in Germany. Hastings Center Report 35(3): 42–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, M. 2009. Three ways to politicize bioethics. American Journal of Bioethics 9(2): 43–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryman, A. 1992. Quality and quantity in social research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Callahan, D. 2003. Individual good and common good. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46(4): 496–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchman, C.W. 1971. The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dolan, P. 2001. Utilitarianism and the measurement and aggregation of quality-adjusted life years. Health Care Analysis 9(1): 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilardi, F. 2008. Delegation in the regulatory state: Independent regulatory agencies in Western Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Harris, J. 2005. Its not NICE to discriminate. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(7): 373–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hasman, A. 2008. The accountability problem of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Medicine and Law 27(1): 83–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ipperciel, D. 2003. Dialogue and decision in a moral context. Nursing Philosophy 4(3): 211–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuczewski, M. 2001. The epistemology of communitarian bioethics: traditions in the public debates. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22(2): 135–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacIntyre, A. 1988. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  22. Malhotra, Y. 2000. Knowledge Management and Virtual Organisations. Hershey: IGP.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moon, J.D. 1993. Constructing community: Moral pluralism and tragic conflicts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mulhall, S., and A. Swift. 1996. Liberals and communitarians. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. NICE. 2008. Social value judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance, 2nd ed. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar
  27. NICE. 2009. The guidelines manual. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar
  28. Palys, T. 2003. Research decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Scarborough: Thomson.Google Scholar
  29. Pearson, S., and M. Rawlins. 2005. Quality, innovation and value for money. JAMA 294(20): 2618–2622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rawlins, M.D. 2005. Pharmacopolitics and deliberative democracy. Clinical Medicine 5(5): 471–475.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rawls, J. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rockmore, T. 2005. On constructivist epistemology. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  34. Scharpf, F.W. 1999. Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Taylor, C. 1992. Multiculturalism and the politics of recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor-Gooby, P. 2008. Trust and welfare state reform: the example of the NHS. Social Policy and Administration 42(1): 288–306.Google Scholar
  37. Thatcher, M., and A. Stone Sweet. 2002. Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. West European Politics 25(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trotter, G. 2006. Bioethics and liberal democracy: five warnings from Hobbes. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31(3): 235–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner, L. 2004. Bioethics in pluralistic societies. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7(2): 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations