Kirchin, Simon T. and Edwards, Sarah J (2002) Rationing, Randomising and Researching in Health Care Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28 (1). pp. 20-23. ISSN 0306-6800. (The full text of this publication is not currently available from this repository. You may be able to access a copy if URLs are provided)
In this paper the need for valid evidence of the cost-effectiveness of treatments that have not been properly evaluated, yet are already available, albeit in short supply, are examined. Such treatments cannot be withdrawn, pending proper evaluation, nor can they be made more widely available until they have been shown to be cost-effective. As a solution to this impasse the argument put forward recently by Toroyan et al is discussed. They say that randomised controlled trials of such resources could be done but only if resources are randomly allocated independently of a research context. Relevant outcome data could then be collected for research, given this opportunity. (There are already few investigators who have turned limited resources, health service provision, to their advantage in this way.) We agree. We disagree with Toroyan et al on a number of points, First, they claim that no ethical issue relating to equipoise arises. We disagree and this disagreement depends on our showing that equipoise should be maintained in a relationship that they do not consider. Secondly, they say that consent to data collection is always needed. Again we disagree. Thirdly, they claim that the previous two issues are the only possible ethical issues that could arise. We argue, instead, that there is a further conflict of interests that has ethical import.
|Subjects:||B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BJ Ethics|
|Divisions:||Faculties > Humanities > School of European Culture and Languages|
|Depositing User:||Simon Kirchin|
|Date Deposited:||25 Sep 2008 10:16|
|Last Modified:||28 May 2014 09:53|
|Resource URI:||https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/7782 (The current URI for this page, for reference purposes)|