ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996
Lessons for health care rationing from the case of child B.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Everyday ethics: learning from an 'ordinary' consultation in general practice.London journal of primary care · 2011Article
- Public involvement in health care priority setting: an economic perspective.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 1999Article
- Rationing: a transatlantic perspective.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1996Article
- Health care rationing. Oregon asked people about moral values.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Health care rationing. Who will be patients' advocate if doctors assume the rationing role?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
More details have emerged about the child B leukaemia case with the publication of the All England Law Report on the Appeal Court decision. At the time the view was widely held that the controversy might have been avoided if the responsible health authority had consulted the public. The law report reveals, however, that the courts adopted a moral language widely at variance with that of the patient's doctor. The courts were concerned to support a utilitarian decision procedure based on calculations of the greatest overall good; the doctor was concerned with the best interests of a sick child. The doctor-patient relationship may be damaged when public consideration transforms the issue in this way. Also, the Appeal Court supported a decision which claimed to have "weighed" opposing evaluations, but it excused the health authority from describing how that weighing took place. One of the main criticisms of the utilitarian approach, however, is that weighing of this type is extremely difficult to justify. By its ruling the court has made legal challenge on the grounds of inadequate consultation virtually impossible to substantiate.
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.