Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10787798›Full record

ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy1999

The British National Health Service: a tarnished moral vision?

L Doyal, L Doyal

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Ethical principles and the rationing of health care: a qualitative study in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005
    Article
  2. Reconfiguring professional ethics: the rise of managerialism and public health in the UK National Health Service.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2001
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

L DoyalQueen Mary and Westfield College, St. Bartholomew's and The Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of London, UK. L.Doyal@lhmc.ac.uk
L Doyal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Last year (1998) saw the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the British National Health Service (NHS). One of the few completely nationalized systems of health care in the world, the NHS is seen by many as a moral beacon of what it means to provide equitable medical treatment to all citizens on the basis of need and need alone. However, others argue that it has failed to achieve the overall goals for which it was created. Because of scarce resources, some urgently needed care is not available at all, while that which is received is sometimes second class. For these reasons, it is claimed that the NHS should be scrapped and replaced by other systems of health care delivery. This paper outlines the history of the NHS, indicating some of the problems and innovations which have led to its current organization and structure. The philosophical foundations of the NHS are then articulated and defended on the grounds that it still represents a morally coherent and economically efficient approach to the delivery of health care. Scarce resources are the key problem facing the NHS, making rationing inevitable and it is shown that this is not incompatible with the moral foundations of the service. However, there can be little doubt that the NHS is now becoming dangerously under-funded. The paper concludes with arguments about why this is so and what might be done about it.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalFinancing, GovernmentHealth Care RationingHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMoralsOrganizational ObjectivesState MedicineUnited KingdomHealth Care and Public Health

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.