Skip to main content
×
Home

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, DELIBERATIVE PROCESS, AND ETHICALLY CONTESTED ISSUES

  • Norman Daniels (a1) and Gert Jan van der Wilt (a2)
Abstract

Healthcare technology assessment (HTA) aims to support decisions as to which technologies should be used in which situations to optimize value. Because such decisions will create winners and losers, they are bound to be controversial. HTA, then, faces a dilemma: should it stay away from such controversies, remaining a source of incomplete advice and risking an important kind of marginalization, or should it enter the controversy? The question is a challenging one, because we lack agreement on principles that are fine grained enough to tell us what choices we should make. In this study, we will argue that HTA should take a stand on ethical issues raised by the technology that is being investigated. To do so, we propose adding a form of procedural justice to HTA to arrive at decisions that the public can regard as legitimate and fair. A fair process involves deliberation about the reasons, evidence, and rationales that are considered relevant to meeting population-health needs fairly. One important way to make sure that there is real deliberation about relevant reasons is to include a range of stakeholders in the deliberative process. To illustrate how such deliberation might work, we use the case of cochlear implants for deaf children.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, DELIBERATIVE PROCESS, AND ETHICALLY CONTESTED ISSUES
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, DELIBERATIVE PROCESS, AND ETHICALLY CONTESTED ISSUES
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, DELIBERATIVE PROCESS, AND ETHICALLY CONTESTED ISSUES
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
Hide All
1. Banta HD, Jonsson E. History of HTA: An introduction. Int J Technol Assessment Health Care. 2009;25 (S1):1-6.
2. Hoffman B. Why not integrate ethics in HTA: Identification and assessment of the reasons. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2014;10:Doc04 http://www.egms.de/static/de/journals/hta/2014-10/hta000120.shtml (accessed October 30, 2015).
3. Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2477-2481.
4. Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, et al. Discourse and morality. Ethics. 2000;110:514-536.
5. Caro JJ, Nord E, Siebert U, et al. The efficiency Frontier approach to economic evaluation of health-care interventions. Health Econ. 2010;19:1117-1127.
6. Brock D. Ethical issues in the use of cost effectiveness analysis for the prioritization of health care resources. In: Khusfh G, Engelhardt T, eds. Bioethics: A philosophical overview. Dordrecht: Kluwer Publishers; 2004:353-380.
7. Brock D. Priority to the worst off in health care resource prioritization. In: Battin M, Rhodes R, Silvers A, eds. Medicine and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002:362-372.
8. Kamm F. Morality, mortality: Death and whom to save from it. (Vol. I). Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
9. Daniels N. How to achieve fair distribution of ARTs in “3 by 5”: Fair process and legitimacy in patient selection. Geneva: World Health Organization/UNAIDS; 2004.
10. Dolan P, Shaw R, Tsuchiya A, Williams A. QALY maximization and people's preferences: A methodological review of the literature. Health Econ. 2005;14:197-208.
11. Menzel P, Gold M, Nord E, Pinto-Prades JL, Richardson J, Ubel P. Toward a broader view of values in cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. Hastings Cent Rep. 1999;29:7-15.
12. Cohen J. Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In: Bohman J, Rehg W, eds. Deliberative democracy. Essays on reasons and politics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1997:407-437.
13. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1971.
14. Daniels N. Wide reflective equilibrium and theory choice in ethics. J Philos. 1979;76:256-282.
15. Daniels N. Justice and justification: Reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
16. van der Burg W, van Willigenburg Theo, (eds.). 1998. Reflective equilibrium: Essays in Honour of Robert Heeger (Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy). Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1998.
17. Reuzel RPB, van der Wilt GJ, ten Have HAMJ, de Vries Robbé PF. Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. J Med Philos. 2001;26:245-261.
18. Schön D, Rein M. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1995.
19. Reuzel RPB. Health technology assessment and interactive evaluation: Different perspectives. Thesis. Nijmegen: Radboud University Nijmegen; 2001.
20. Fischer F. Democracy and expertise. Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
21. Daniels N, Sabin J. Setting limits fairly. 1st and 2nd eds. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002:2008.
22. Farrell A, VanDeveer SD, Jäger J. Environmental assessments: Four under-appreciated elements of design. Glob Environ Change. 2001;11:311-333.
23. Moret M, Reuzel RPB, van der Wilt GJ, Grin J. Validity and reliability of qualitative data analysis: Inter-observer agreement in reconstructing interpretative frames. Field Methods. 2007;19:24-39.
24. Grin J, van de Graaf H. Technology assessment as learning. Sci Technol Hum Values. 1996;20:72-99.
25. Daniels N, Sabin J. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philos Public Aff. 1997;26:303-350.
26. Daniels N, Sabin J. Setting limits fairly: Learning to share resources for health. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 38
Total number of PDF views: 360 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 416 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.