Reidar Lie

This article tries to present a broad view on the values and ethicalissues that are at stake in efforts to rationalize health policy on thebasis of economic evaluations (like cost-effectiveness analysis) andrandomly controlled clinical trials. Though such a rationalization isgenerally seen as an objective and `value free' process, moral valuesoften play a hidden role, not only in the production of `evidence', butalso in the way this evidence is used in policy making. For example, thedefinition of effectiveness of medical treatment or health care serviceis heavily dependent on dominant individual or social views about thegoals of the particular treatment or service. There is also a concernthat a reliance on EBM in health policy will occur at the expense ofwidely shared social values like equity and solidarity. Moreover, thereis a concern that when economic considerations and rational proceduresbecome more influential, various `outside' groups third parties likeinsurance companies and policy makers will get a stronger influence onmedical practice which may lead to a change in the patient-providerrelationship. The authors conclude that social values and patientpreference should be explicitly addressed when health policy making isbased on economic and other scientific evidence

It has been suggested that focusing on procedures when setting priorities for health care avoids the conflicts that arise when attempting to agree on principles. A prominent example of this approach is “accountability for reasonableness.” We will argue that the same problem arises with procedural accounts; reasonable people will disagree about central elements in the process. We consider the procedural condition of appeal process and three examples of conflicts over coverage decisions: a patients’ rights law in Norway, health technologies coverage recommendations in the UK, and care withheld by HMOs in the US. In each case a process is at the center of controversy, illustrating the difficulties in establishing procedures that are widely accepted as legitimate. Further work must be done in developing procedural frameworks.

Background. Despite common recognition of joint responsibility for global health by all countries particularly to ensure justice in global health, current discussions of countries’ obligations for global health largely ignore obligations of developing countries. This is especially the case with regards to obligations relating to health financing. Bearing in mind that it is not possible to achieve justice in global health without achieving equity in health financing at both domestic and global levels, our aim is to show how fulfilling the obligation we propose will make it easy to achieve equity in health financing at both domestic and international levels. Discussion. Achieving equity in global health financing is a crucial step towards achieving justice in global health. Our general view is that current discussions on global health equity largely ignore obligations of Low Income Country governments and we recommend that these obligations should be mainstreamed in current discussions. While we recognise that various obligations need to be fulfilled in order to ultimately achieve justice in global health, for lack of space we prioritise obligations for health financing. Basing on the evidence that in most LICs health is not given priority in annual budget allocations, we propose that LIC governments should bear an obligation to allocate a certain minimum percent of their annual domestic budget resources to health, while they await external resources to supplement domestic ones. We recommend and demonstrate a mechanism for coordinating this obligation so that if the resulting obligations are fulfilled by both LIC and HIC governments it will be easy to achieve equity in global health financing. Summary. Although achieving justice in global health will depend on fulfilment of different categories of obligations, ensuring inter- and intra-country equity in health financing is pivotal. This can be achieved by requiring all LIC governments to allocate a certain optimal per cent of their domestic budget resources to health while they await external resources to top up in order to cover the whole cost of the minimum health opportunities for LIC citizens.

Decision analysts sometimes use the results of clinical trials in order to evaluate treatment alternatives. I discuss some problems associated with this, and in particular I point out that it is not valid to use the estimates from clinical trials as the probabilities of events which are needed for decision analysis. I also attempt to show that an approach based on objective statistical theory may have advantages over commonly used methods based on decision theory. These advantages include the recognition of uncertain data, the introduction of a third alternative, namely suspension of judgement, and the possibility of modifying the choice of probabilities based on a clinical trial with reference to other available knowledge. I have not, however, shown in detail how this modification is done, but I think the concept is sufficiently promising to be applied to an actual clinical decision problem.

Introduction Stored human samples and the establishment of biobanks are increasing in the world. Along with this there are the questions of ethics that arise such as the correct method of obtaining informed consent for research on stored samples and the policies involved in collaborative research using collected samples. This study is an attempt to evaluate the researchers, academics and policy makers' views on these ethical aspects. Methods This was an anonymised study involving a Sri Lankan population of researchers, ethics committee members, and policy makers. A self administered questionnaire was utilised as the study instrument. The questionnaire captured four major areas of interest: demographic characteristics of respondents, their attitudes on informed consent policy, their opinion on rights of collaborating researchers, their attitudes on dealing with international differences in regulatory frameworks. Results The study included 55 responders with 40/55 agreeing that donors should receive the option of giving informed consent for future research, with 31/55 considering multiple- type consent options most appropriate. Regarding the issue of shared samples in collaborative research majority agreed that source country ethics review committee approval was necessary 53/55. Conclusion The study concludes that sample donors should be given the option of giving advance consent to unspecified future research provided that future research is approved by an ethics committee. In collaborative research, it is necessary to involve ethics committees from donor countries in the research approval process

Background: Sharing of tissue samples for research and disease surveillance purposes has become increasingly important. While it is clear that this is an area of intense, international controversy, there is an absence of data about what researchers themselves and those involved in the transfer of samples think about these issues, particularly in developing countries. Methods: A survey was carried out in a number of Asian countries and in Egypt to explore what researchers and others involved in research, storage and transfer of human tissue samples thought about some of the issues related to sharing of such samples. Results: The results demonstrated broad agreement with the positions taken by developing countries in the current debate, favoring quite severe restrictions on the use of samples by developed countries. Conclusions: It is recommended that an international agreement is developed on what conditions should be attached to any sharing of human tissue samples across borders

It is a remarkable fact about the development of medical ethics from the 1960s until today that there has been a dramatic shift from a position where it was taken for granted that the physician knows best, to a position where much greater emphasis is put on the patient’s treatment preferences. This shift is evident with regard to physician attitudes towards disclosing a cancer diagnosis. For example, in 1961, a survey of cancer physicians showed that almost 90% of the physicians reported that their usual policy was not to tell their patients that they had cancer . The survey was repeated in 1979, and it showed a complete reversal in attitudes over this 20-year period. 90% reported that their usual policy was to tell their patients that they had cancer .One common way of justifying the new approach is to claim that patients have a right to make their own treatment decisions, referring to the basic value of patient autonomy. However, it is immediately obvious that physicians should not respect all choices made by patients. Consider the following case: A thirty-eight-year-old man with mild upper respiratory infection suddenly developed severe headache, stiff neck, and high fever. He went to an emergency room for help. The diagnosis was pneumococcal meningitis, a bacterial meningitis almost always fatal if not treated. If treatment is delayed, permanent neurological damage is likely. A physician told the patient that urgent treatment was needed to save his life and forestall brain damage. The patient refused to consent to treatment saying he wanted to be allowed to die .Very few, if any, physicians would respect this person’s treatment choice. The reason is that this patient is not competent to make his own decisions. Respect for autonomy only requires that the choices of patients who are competent to make their own decisions are honoured. Judgements about which patients are competent to make their own decisions therefore become crucial