Abstract
Considers the nature of rationing, examining legal and ethical aspects in the context of current political resistance to admitting that rationing exists in the NHS. Considers the inherent contradictions in the two main ethical models (deontological and utilitarian) in relation to the tensions between the needs of individual patients and the wider needs of society. Argues that allocation of resources is inevitable and consideration is given to the merits of different ways of achieving this rationing. Considers the role of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence and concludes that it would be honest to admit that rationing exists and that it is difficult to implement.
Subject
Leadership and Management
Reference29 articles.
1. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corpn (1948) , 1 KB 233 at 229, (1947) 2 All ER 680 at 683, per Lord Greene WR, CA.
2. Chisholm, J. (1999), “Viagra: a botched test case for rationing”, BMJ, Vol. 318, pp. 271‐4.
3. Department of Health (DoH) (1977), National Health Service Act, DoH, London, s1.
4. Dyer, C. (1999), “Viagra guidance declared unlawful”, BMJ, Vol. 318, p. 1509
5. Farsides, B. and Dunlop, R.J. (2001), “Is there such a thing as a life not worth living?”, BMJ, Vol. 332, pp. 1481‐3.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献