Abstract
The widespread application of technology in health care has imposed a broad range of challenges. The field of health technology assessment (HTA) is developed in order to face some of these challenges. However, this strategy has not been as successful as one could hope. One of the reasons for this is that social and ethical considerations have not been integrated in the HTA process. Nowadays however, such considerations have been included in many HTAs. Still, the conclusions and recommendations of the HTAs are not followed. The reason for this may be that the methods for integrating ethics for HTA are not sufficiently developed, or that they are not adequate. This article presents a supplementary approach to the ethical inquiry in HTA. It is argued that a value analysis is crucial in order to address the ethical issues of health care technology in a fruitful way and to make viable decisions about such technology.
Zusammenfassung
Die weit verbreitete Anwendung technischer Verfahren im Gesundheitswesen hat eine Vielfalt von Herausforderungen in den Vordergrund gerückt. Um einigen dieser Herausforderungen gegenübertreten zu können, ist das Gebiet des Health Technology Assessment (HTA, Beurteilung medizintechnischer Verfahren) entwickelt worden. Diese Strategie ist bisher jedoch nicht so erfolgreich wie man sich erhoffen könnte. Als einer der Gründe für diesen Umstand wurde früher angenommen, soziale und ethische Überlegungen seien aus dem HTA-Prozess ausgeklammert geblieben. Heute gehören jedoch gerade solche sozialen und ethischen Erwägungen zu vielen HTAs. Dennoch werden die Schlussfolgerungen und Empfehlungen der HTAs nicht befolgt. Der Grund hierfür könnte sein, dass die Ethik für HTA nicht ausreichend entwickelt ist, oder dass sie den Anforderungen von HTA nicht gerecht wird. In diesem Artikel wird ein ergänzender Ansatz zur ethischen Untersuchung im Rahmen von HTA präsentiert. Demnach ist eine Wertanalyse zwingend notwendig, um die ethischen Fragen bearbeiten zu können und zu angemessenen Entscheidungen über solche Technologien zu gelangen.
Rèsumé
L’application largement répandue de procédés technologiques dans le domaine de la santé a mis en lumiére un grand nombre de défis. Le domaine de l’évaluation des technologies de la santé (ETS) a été développé pour maîtriser quelques uns de ces défis. Cette stratégie n’a cependant pas rencontré le succés escompté. On en vit tout d’abord la raison dans le fait que les aspects sociaux et éthiques n’avaient pas été pris en compte dans le processus d’ETS. Aujourd’hui pourtant, des considérations sociales et éthiques ont été intégrées dans de nombreuses ETS. Mais les conclusions et les recommandations des ETS ne sont toujours pas suivies. Cela s’explique peut-être par un développement insuffisant des aspects éthiques appliqués à l’ETS, ou par leur caractére inadéquat. Cet article présente une approche complémentaire des réflexions éthiques dans l’ETS. Il montre qu’une analyse des valeurs est essentielle pour aborder de maniére fructueuse les questions éthiques liées aux technologies médicales et pour déboucher sur des décisions viables sur ces technologies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The issue of how to assert that ethical issues in trials are addressed in systematic reviews has recently been addressed (Weingarten et al.2004); however, this concerns mainly research ethical issues
The CI case is brilliant in that it illustrates some important moral and social issues that have been neglected by the assessment of the technology. However, the case is rather untypical, as the technology in question (CI) is assessed to be effective, but the social context of the patient disvalues it. Most frequently it is the other way around: there is a technology that is assessed and found to be ineffective, not efficient, and/or disvalued by a group of people, but it is still implemented and used in the health care system. Furthermore, some of the moral issues in the CI case are due to the guardianship of the parents, deciding what is best for the child. However, the case of CI clearly illustrates how important it is to address external values related to the assessed technology. Such values may be values of certain interest groups, or political, religious, as well as moral values and many more. However, even if one takes these values into account the assessment may be ignored in clinical practice. One of the reasons for this is that the HTA process itself involves a series of covert values
A different way of phrasing the question would be: are we trapped in a hermeneutic circle?
It is interesting to notice that there appear to be some semantic values at play: apparatus based technology is judged in a different manner than pharmaceuticals. They are classified differently, and in most countries they are differentiated legally as well. This contradicts most HTA definitions of technology
References
Ashcroft R, ter Meulen R (2004) Ethics, philosophy, and evidence based medicine. J Med Ethics 30:119, 10.1136/jme.2003.007286, 15082800
Ashcroft RE (2004) Current epistemological problems in evidence based medicine. J Med Ethics 30:131–135, 15082804, 10.1136/jme.2003.007039
Banta HD (2004) Foreword. Poiesis Prax 2:93–95
Boyle P (1992) Outcome data and ethics: getting doctors to pay attention. Health Prog 73(4):70–71
Brekke OA, Eriksen EO (1999) Technology assessment in a deliberative perspective. In: von Schomberg R (ed) Democratising technology—theory and practice of a deliberative technology policy. International Centre for Human and Public Affairs, Hegnelo, Buenos Aires, pp 93–119
Bross IDJ (1981) Metatechnology: a technology for the safe, effective and economical use of technology. Theor Med 2:145–153
Calman KC (1994) The ethics of allocation of scarce health care resources: a view from the centre. J Med Ethics 20(2):71–74, 8083876
Caplan AL (1983) How should values count in the allocation of new technologies in health care? In: Bayer R, Caplan AL, Daniels N (eds) Search of equity. Plenum, New York
Cassell EJ (1993) The sorcerer’s broom: medicine’s rampant technology. Hastings Cent Rep 6:32–39
Clausen C, Yoshinaka Y (2004) Social shaping of technology in TA and HTA. Poiesis Prax 2(2,3):221–246
Cooper AC (1999) The slippery slope and technological determinism. Princet J Bioeth 2(1):64–76, 11658145
Daher M (1999) The ethics of applying new technologies: lessons from minimally invasive surgery. J Med Liban 47(5):304–307, 10887534
Davies L, Drummond M, Papanikolaou P (2000) Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess 16:73–91, 10.1017/S0266462300016172
Diamond GA, Denton TA (1991) Alternative perspectives on the biased foundations of medical technology assessment. Ann Intern Med 118(6):455–64
Ellul J (1964) The technological society. Alfred A. Knopf, New York
Grunvald A (2000) Against over-estimating the role of ethics in technology development. Sci Eng Ethics 6(2):181–196, 11273446, 10.1007/s11948-000-0046-7
Hanson MJ (1999) The idea of progress and the goals of medicine. In: Hanson MJ, Callahan D (eds) The goals of medicine: the forgotten issues in health care reform. Georgetown University Press, Washington, pp 137–151
Heitman E (1998) Ethical issues in technology assessment. Conceptual categories and procedural considerations. Int J Technol Assess 14(3):544–566, 10.1017/S0266462300011521
Hellerstein D (1983) Overdosing on medical technology. Technol Rev 86:12–17
Hellman S, Hellman DS (1991) Of mice but not men: problems of the randomized clinical trial. NEJM 325:1585–1589, 1944445
Hennen L (2004) Biomedical and bioethical issues in parliamentary TA and in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax 2:207–220
Hiddinga A, Blume SS (1992) Technology, science, and obstetric practice: the origins and transformation of cephalopelvimetry. Sci Technol Hum Values 17:154–179, 10.1177/016224399201700202
Hofmann B (2001a) On the value-ladenness of technology in medicine. Eur J Med Health Care Philos 4(3):335–345, 10.1023/A:1012069919089
Hofmann B (2001b) The technological invention of disease. J Med Ethics Med Humanit 27:10–19
Hofmann B (2002a) Is there a technological imperative in health care? Int J Technol Assess 18(3):675–689
Hofmann B (2002b) Technological medicine and the autonomy of man. Eur J Med Health Care Philos 5:157–167, 10.1023/A:1016070531526
Hofmann B (2002c) The technological invention of disease—on disease, technology and values. Thesis, University of Oslo
Hofmann B (2003) Technology assessment of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)—an analysis of the value context. Fertil Steril 80(4):930–935, 10.1016/S0015-0282(03)01152-X, 14556814
Holland WW (2004) Health technology assessment and public health: a commentary. Int J Technol Assess 20(1):77–80
Højgaard L (2003) Are health technology assessments a reliable tool in the analysis of the clinical value of PET in oncology? Who audits the auditors? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30(5):637–641
Illich I (1975) Medical nemesis: the expropriation of health. Calder and Boyars, London
Jennett B (994) Medical technology, social and health care issues. In: Gillon R (ed) Principles of health care ethics. Wiley, New York
Jonsson E, Banta HD, Henshall C, Sampietro-Colom L (2002) Summary report of the ECHTA/ECAHI project. Int J Technol Assess 18:218–237
Kazanjian A (2004) Reflections on the social epicemiologic dimension of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess 20(2):167–173, 10.1017/S0266462304000947
Kim M, Blendon RJ, Benson JM (2001) How interested are Americans in new medical technologies? A multicountry comparison. Health Aff (Millwood) Sep–Oct 20(5):194–201, 10.1377/hlthaff.20.5.194
Koenig BA (1988) The technological imperative in medical practice: the social creation of a “routine” treatment. In: Lock M, Godon DR (eds) Biomedicine examined. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 465–496
Krauss AN, Miké V, Ross GS (1992) Perinatal technology; answers and questions. J Clin Ethics 3(1):56–62, 1301829
Lappetito J (1993) Technology: a moral evaluation. Ethical questions on the use of technology from a macro and micro perspective. Health Prog 74(1):48–49, 79
Le Fanu J (1999) The rise and fall of modern medicine. Little Brown, London
Liberati A, Vineis P (2004) What evidence based medicine is and what it is not. J Med Ethics 30:120–121, 10.1136/jme.2003.007195, 15082801
Marwick C (1988) Philosophy on trial: examining ethics of clinical investigation. JAMA 260:749–751, 10.1001/jama.260.6.749, 3392800
Nilstun T, Westrin CG, Thelander S, Jacobsson L (2000) Values and technology assessment in psychiatry. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 399:6–12, 10.1111/j.0902-4441.2000.007s020.x, 10794018
Oliver A, Mossialos E, Robinson R (2004) Health technology assessment and its influence on health-care priority setting. Int J Technol Assess 20:1–10
Renn O (1998) Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. J Risk Res 1(1):49–71, 10.1080/136698798377321
Reuzel RP, van der Wilt GJ, ten Have HA, de Vries Robbe PF (1999) Reducing normative bias in health technology assessment: interactive evaluation and casuistry. Med Health Care Philos 2(3):255–263, 10.1023/A:1009963018813, 11080992
Reuzel RP, Oortvijn W, Decker M, Clausen C, Gallo P, Grin P, Grunwald A, Hennen L, van der Wilt GJ, Yoshinaka Y (2004) Ethics and HTA: some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis Prax 2:247–256
Sharpe VA, Faden AI (1998) Medical harm. Historical, conceptual, and ethical dimensions of iatrogenic illness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Skorupinski B, Ott K (2002) Technology assessment and ethics. Poiesis Prax 1:95–122
Skrabanek P (1994) The death of humane medicine and the rise of coercive healthism. Social Affairs Unit, London
Sundström P (1998) Interpreting the notion that technology is value-neutral. Med Health Care Philos 1:41–45, 11081281
Swidler RN (1994) Medical innovations and ethics: a state government perspective. Albany Law Rev 57(3):655–677, 11652859
ten Have HA (1995) Medical technology assessment and ethics. Ambivalent relations. Hastings Cent Rep 25(5):13–19, 10.2307/3562789
ten Have H (2004) Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess 20(1):71–76
Tranøy KE (1988) Science and ethics. Some of the main principles and problems. In: Jones AJI (ed) The moral import of science. Essays on normative theory, scientific activity and Wittgenstein. Sigma Forlag Bergen, pp 111–114
Truog RD, Arnold JH (1992) The “ethics of evidence” and randomized controlled trials. J Clin Ethics 3(1):65–67
Tymstra T (1989) The imperative character of medical technology and the meaning of “anticipated decision regret”. Int J Technol Assess 5:207–213
Van der Wilt GJ (1995) Empirical and normative aspects of medical technology assessment. The case of reduced-size liver transplantations with living donors. Theor Med 16(3):291–316, 10.1007/BF00998147, 8533117
Van der Wilt GJ, Reuzel R, Banta HD (2000) The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth 21(1):103–115, 10927971, 10.1023/A:1009934700930
Von Wright GH (1963) The varieties of goodness. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
Watts JL, Blanchard R, Guyatt G, Miller D, Singer P, Haynes RB, Van Loon R (1992) Technology in medicine - ethics, politics and reality. Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can 25(1):51–54, 11653977
Weingarten MA, Paul M, Leibovici L (2004) Assessing ethics of trials in systematic reviews. BMJ 328:1013–1014, 10.1136/bmj.328.7446.1013, 15105330
Williams R, Sørensen KH (2002) Shaping technology, guiding policy: concepts, spaces and tools. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Winner L (1977) Autonomous technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Wolf S, Berle BB (1981) The technological imperative in medicine. Plenum Press, London
Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning—reconceiving science in the preventive paradigm. Glob Envir Change 2:111–127, 10.1016/0959-3780(92)90017-2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer’s wise and inspiring comments and relevant suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hofmann, B. On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax 3, 277–295 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-005-0073-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-005-0073-1