Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 3, 2026
07:46
Setting Limits on Supersymmetry Using Simplified Models
Published on: November 15, 2013
Not a NICE fallacy: a reply to Dr Quigley.
1Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, Heslington, York.
Journal of Medical Ethics
|August 1, 2008
Summary
This study refutes the claim that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) assigns value to human lives. It offers an alternative perspective on NICE
Area of Science:
- Health economics
- Bioethics
- Public health policy
Background:
- Muireann Quigley argues that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) values and assesses the worth of individuals' lives.
- This perspective raises ethical concerns regarding resource allocation and societal value judgments within healthcare.
Purpose of the Study:
- To repudiate Muireann Quigley's argument concerning NICE's valuation of human lives.
- To present an alternative interpretation of NICE's actual functions and decision-making processes.
- To address the ethical implications and unresolved challenges in health technology assessment and public health insurance.
Main Methods:
- Critical analysis and philosophical argumentation.
- Re-evaluation of NICE's established procedures and stated objectives.
- Ethical examination of health-related value judgments and interpersonal comparisons.
Main Results:
- NICE's procedures are not inherently unreasonable, despite criticisms.
- The argument that NICE assigns worth to lives is refuted.
- Significant unresolved problems persist, particularly in making interpersonal comparisons of health.
Conclusions:
- The study rejects Quigley's central thesis and other ethically questionable propositions.
- An alternative framework is proposed for understanding NICE's role in the National Health Service (NHS).
- Challenges remain in defining benefit bundles for public health insurance, necessitating further ethical and economic inquiry.
Related Concept Videos
02:35Reaction Quotient
The status of a reversible reaction is conveniently assessed by evaluating its reaction quotient (Q). For a reversible reaction described by m A + n B ⇌ x C + y D, the reaction quotient is derived directly from the stoichiometry of the balanced equation as
01:00Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test
When one or more data points appear far from the rest of the data, there is a need to determine whether they are outliers and whether they should be eliminated from the data set to ensure an accurate representation of the measured value. In many cases, outliers arise from gross errors (or human errors) and do not accurately reflect the underlying phenomenon. In some cases, however, these apparent outliers reflect true phenomenological differences. In these cases, we can use statistical methods...
02:09Stereotype Threat and Self-fulfilling Prophecies
When we hold a stereotype about a person, we have expectations that he or she will fulfill that stereotype. A self-fulfilling prophecy is an expectation held by a person that alters his or her behavior in a way that tends to make it true. When we hold stereotypes about a person, we tend to treat the person according to our expectations. This treatment can influence the person to act according to our stereotypic expectations, thus confirming our stereotypic beliefs. Research by Rosenthal and...
01:13Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
01:08The Availability Heuristic
A heuristic is a general problem-solving framework (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). You can think of these as mental shortcuts that are used to solve problems. Different types of heuristics are used in different types of situations, and the impulse to use a heuristic occurs when one of five conditions is met (Pratkanis, 1989):
01:28Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II
The Bradford Hill criteria serve as guidelines for establishing causative links in epidemiological research. Beyond Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality, key criteria also include Biological Gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy. These principles assist scientists in assessing the likelihood of causation in complex biological contexts. Below is a summary of these concepts: