Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 101–113 | Cite as

The ethics of assessing health technologies

  • Gert Jan van der Wilt
  • Rob Reuzel
  • H. David Banta


Health technology assessment (HTA) 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 (CI) 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.

cochlear implantation ethics health technology assessment interactive evaluation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brennan JM. The Open-Texture of Moral Problems. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1977.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    British Deaf Association. Policy on Cochlear Implants. Carlisle, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crouch RA. Letting the deaf be deaf. Hastings Center Report 1997; 27(4): 14–21.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dauman R, Debrugge E, Carbonniere B, Lautissier-Berger S, Bouye J, Soriano V. Development of capacities of communication and socialization in young deaf children: Ytility of a common assessment protocol for implanted or hearing aid equipped children. Acta Otolaryngol Stockh 1996; 116(2): 234–239.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: SAGE, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ten Have H. Medical technology assessment and ethics: Ambivalent relations. Hastings Center Report 1995; 25(5): 13–19.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonsen AR, Toulmin SE. The Abuse of Casuistry. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lutman ME, Tait DM. Early communicative behavior in young children receiving cochlear implants: Factor analysis of turn-taking and gaze orientation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 397–399.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Purdy SC, Chard LL, Moran CA, Hodgson SA. Outcomes of cochlear implants for New Zealand children and their families. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 102–105.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scriven M. The Logic of Evaluation. Inverness, CA: Edgepress, 1980.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shadish WR, Cook TD, Leviton LC. Foundations of Program Evaluation-Theories of Practice. Newbury Park: SAGE, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stake RE. Quieting Reform. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tait DM. Video analysis: A method of assessing changes in preverbal and early linguistic communication after cochlear implantation. Ear hear 1993; 14(6): 378–389.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tye-Murray N, Spencer L, Woodworth GG. Acquisition of speech by children who have prolonged cochlear implant experience. J Speech Hear Res 1995; 38(2): 227–337.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quittner AL, Steck JT, Rouiller RL. Cochlear implants in children: a study of parental stress and adjustment. Am J Otol 1991; 12(suppl.): 95–104.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weiss RS. Learning from Strangers-the Art and the Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gert Jan van der Wilt
    • 1
  • Rob Reuzel
    • 2
  • H. David Banta
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Medical Technology AssessmentUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical Technology AssessmentUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.TNO Prevention and HealthLeidenthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations