Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T21:27:44.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are clinical practice guidelines impartial?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2004

Joshua Cohen
Joshua Cohen
Affiliation:
Erasmus University Tufts University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls demands from citizens who decide upon principles of justice and the rules derived from such principles that they abstract from all particularities that constitute their identity as unique individuals. This demand is unrealistic in policy settings where actual policy-makers convene to provide guidance, establish rules regarding public good, and enact legislation. In practice, I argue, policy-makers, legislators, and others involved in developing social rules that pertain to distributive justice formulate such rules as reasonably partial spectators. To illustrate, I show how clinical practice guidelines are established and mediated by a reasonably partial expert panel whose partial action is publicly justifiable, yet whose claims to impartiality are not.

Keywords

Clinical practice guidelineRationingDistributive justicePublic justification
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2004 , pp. 415 - 420
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson G, Hall M, Steinberg E. 1993 Medical technology assessment and practice guidelines: Their day in court. Am J Public Health. 83: 1635– 1640.Google Scholar
Berg M, ter Meulen R, Van den Burg M. 2001 Guidelines for appropriate care: The importance of empirical normative analysis. Health Care Analysis. 1: 1– 23.Google Scholar
Berger J, Rosner F. 1996 The ethics of practice guidelines. Arch Intern Med. 156: 2051– 2057.Google Scholar
Brookes L. Medscape conference coverage, based on selected sessions at the 13th European Meeting on Hypertension. ALLHAT—Results and Reactions—Plus New Guidelines, New Approvals, and the Ethics of Journal Publishing. Medscape Cardiology. Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/447590.
Brookes L. More new hypertension guidelines—but is anybody listening? Medscape Cardiology). Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/458407.
CBO. 2003 Richtlijnontwikkeling binnen het Kwaliteitsinstituut voor de Gezondheidszorg CBO: handleiding voor werkgroepleden, Available at: http://www.cbo.nl.
Cohen J. 2003 Switching omeprazole in Sweden and the United States. Am J Ther. 10: 370– 376.Google Scholar
Daniels N. 1985 Just health care. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press;
Daniels N, Light D, Caplan D. 1996 Benchmarks of healthcare reform. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press;
Food and Drug Administration Dockets Management Branch. 2000 Over-the-counter (OTC) drug products: requests for comments. Fed Regist. 65: 24704.
Griswold A. 1999 Adam Smith and the virtues of the enlightenment. New York: Cambridge University Press;
Harpham E. 2001 Enlightenment, impartial spectators, and Griswold's Smith. Perspect Polit Sci. 30: 139– 146.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine. In: Field M, Lohr K, eds. 1992 Guidelines for clinical practice: From development to use. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 21.
Institute of Medicine. 1995 In: Field M, ed. Setting priorities for clinical practice guidelines. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2.
Kleinke J. 2000 Just what the HMO ordered: The paradox of increasing drug costs. Health Affairs. 19: 78– 91.Google Scholar
Lewis S. 1995 Paradox, process and perception: the role of organizations in clinical practice guidelines development. Can Med Assoc. 153: 1073– 1077.Google Scholar
Loewy E. 1996 Guidelines, managed care, and ethics. Arch Intern Med. 156: 2038– 2041.Google Scholar
National Institute for Clinical Excellence. 2003 Guideline development process: Stakeholder participation, Available at: http://www.nice.ac.uk.
Niessen G, Grijseels E, Rutten F. 2000 The evidence-based approach in health policy and health care delivery. Soc Sci Med. 6: 859– 869.Google Scholar
Rawls J. 1971 A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;
Rawls J. 2002 In: Kelly E, ed. Restatement of a theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;
Reinhardt UE. 1997 Wanted: A clearly articulated social ethic for American health care. JAMA. 278: 1446– 1447.Google Scholar
Ter Meulen R. Ethical issues of evidence based medicine, 2001 Available at: http://www.ccels.cardiff.ac.uk/launch/meulenpaper.html.
Ubel P, Goold S. 2003 Rationing health care: Not all definitions are created equal. Contemporary Issues in bioethics. In: Beauchamp T, Walters L, eds. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth;
U.S. Preventive Service Task Force. 2002 Behavioral counseling in primary care to promote physical activity: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 137: 205– 207.
Veatch R. Justice, the basic contract, and health care. Contemporary Issues in bioethics. 2003 In: Beauchamp T, Walters L, eds. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth;
Wax A. 2003 Something for nothing. Emory Law J. 52: 1– 70.Google Scholar
Weinstein M. 2001 Should physicians be gatekeepers of medical resources? J Med Ethics. 27: 268– 273.Google Scholar