Not a NICE Fallacy: A Reply to Dr. Quigley
Journal of Medical Ethics 2008 August; 34(8): 598-601
A repudiation of Muireann Quigley?s argument that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) values and assesses the worth of people?s lives; together with an alternative account of what it appears that NICE actually does, why these procedures are not unreasonable and some of the unresolved problems, especially when making interpersonal comparisons of health, which remain for NICE or, indeed, anyone seeking to determine the contents of the benefits bundles of a public health insurance programme such as the NHS. Some other ethically dubious propositions by Dr. Quigley are also rejected.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Claxton, K.; Culyer, A.J. (2006-07)A rebuttal is provided to each of the arguments adduced by John Harris, an Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, in two editorials in the journal in support of the view that National Institute for Health and ...
Claxton, Karl; Culyer, Anthony J. (2007-08)Harris' reply to our defence of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's (NICE) current cost-effectiveness procedures contains two further errors. First, he wrongly draws a conclusion from the fact that NICE does ...
Quigley, Muireann (2007-08)A response is given to the claim by Claxton and Culyer, who stated that the policies of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) do not evaluate patients rather than treatments. The argument is made ...