Jove
Visualize
Contact Us

Related Experiment Videos

A NICE fallacy.

Muireann Quigley1

  • 1Rm 2.07 Williamson Building, Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. muireann.quigley@manchester.ac.uk.

Journal of Medical Ethics
|August 1, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Transformations in Diabetes Care: Lessons From Commons-Based, Peer-Produced Citizen Science.

Sociology of health & illness·2026
Same author

Towards better Diabetes Data Rights: Data protection, data 'ownership', and developing a patient charter.

Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association·2025
Same author

A European regulatory pathway for Tidepool loop following clearance in the United States?

Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association·2023
Same author

#WeAreNotWaiting DIY artificial pancreas systems and challenges for the law.

Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association·2021
Same author

Prescribing unapproved medical devices? The case of DIY artificial pancreas systems.

Medical law international·2021
Same author

Exacerbating Inequalities? Health Policy and the Behavioural Sciences.

Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy·2018
Same journal

Assisted dying and autonomy as an end in itself: a response to Donaldson.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Ethics briefing.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Medical ethics and categorisation.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Suspension or prioritisation? Exploring the ethics of age-based rationing in adult ADHD services.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Ethics of not knowing who we are talking to in qualitative research.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Suicide is not a public health issue and perhaps very few things should be.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
See all related articles
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

This study critiques the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) policies, arguing that valuing quality of life and life-years to select patients for National Health Service (NHS) treatments is ethically questionable.

Area of Science:

  • Health economics
  • Bioethics
  • Health policy analysis

Background:

  • The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) develops guidelines for healthcare treatments in the UK.
  • A debate exists regarding whether NICE policies prioritize patient selection over treatment evaluation.
  • The use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) is a common metric in health technology assessment.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To respond to the assertion that NICE policies do not evaluate patients, but rather treatments.
  • To critically examine the ethical implications of using patient-specific values in healthcare resource allocation.
  • To question the ethical justification of employing metrics like quality of life and life-years for patient selection within the National Health Service (NHS).

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Ethical analysis of health economic evaluation frameworks.
  • Critique of existing NICE policy guidelines and their application.
  • Philosophical examination of distributive justice in healthcare.

Main Results:

  • The study argues against the claim that NICE policies solely evaluate treatments, suggesting patient-specific factors are implicitly considered.
  • It highlights the ethical concerns surrounding the use of quality of life and life-year metrics in patient prioritization.
  • The ethical dubiousness of using such values to determine treatment access within the NHS is emphasized.

Conclusions:

  • The application of quality of life and life-year metrics in NICE policies raises significant ethical questions regarding patient selection.
  • Further ethical deliberation is required on how to fairly allocate healthcare resources within the National Health Service.
  • The study advocates for a more nuanced approach to evaluating both treatments and the patients who may benefit from them.