ArticleJournal of medical ethics2001
Rationing and life-saving treatments: should identifiable patients have higher priority?
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining the Effect of Depicting a Patient Affected by a Negative Reimbursement Decision in Healthcare on Public Disagreement with the Decision.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
- Article
- Does NICE apply the rule of rescue in its approach to highly specialised technologies?Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- Virtue Ethics in a Value-driven World: When Empathy Clouds Clinical Judgment.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2019Article
- Accounting for equity considerations in cost-effectiveness analysis: a systematic review of rotavirus vaccine in low- and middle-income countries.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2018Review
- For the Sake of Justice: Should We Prioritize Rare Diseases?Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2017Article
- Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- The role of ethics committees and ethics consultation in allocation decisions: a 4-stage process.Medical care · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health care systems across the world are unable to afford the best treatment for all patients in all situations. Choices have to be made. One key ethical issue that arises for health authorities is whether the principle of the "rule of rescue" should be adopted or rejected. According to this principle more funding should be available in order to save lives of identifiable, compared with unidentifiable, individuals. Six reasons for giving such priority to identifiable individuals are considered. All are rejected. It is concluded that the principle of the rule of rescue should not be used in determining the allocation of health resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.