In healthcare, a tension sometimes arises between the injunction to do as much good as possible with scarce resources and the injunction to rescue identifiable individuals in immediate peril, regardless of cost (the “Rule of Rescue”). This tension can generate serious ethical and political difficulties for public policy makers faced with making explicit decisions about the public funding of controversial health technologies, such as costly new cancer drugs. In this paper we explore the appropriate role of the Rule of Rescue in public resource allocation decisions by health technology funding advisory bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. We consider practical approaches to operationalising the Rule of Rescue from Australia and the UK before examining the relevance of individual moral imperatives to public policy making. We conclude that that whilst public policy makers in a humane society should facilitate exceptional departures from a cost effectiveness norm in clinical decisions about identified individuals, it is not so obvious that they should, as a matter of national public policy, exempt any one group of unidentified individuals within society from the rules of opportunity cost at the expense of all others.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding: CMcC was partially funded by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence between 2002 and 2006. RC is funded by MRC Health Services Research Special Training Fellowship G106/1145.
Competing interests: RC was a member of the NICE Appraisal Committee 2002–2007.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Does NICE apply the rule of rescue in its approach to highly specialised technologies?
- Donor blood screening and moral responsibility: how safe should blood be?
- Neurotrauma and the rule of rescue
- Should rare diseases get special treatment?
- Rights, responsibilities and NICE: a rejoinder to Harris
- From proband to provider: is there an obligation to inform genetic relatives of actionable risks discovered through direct-to-consumer genetic testing?
- Participation in biomedical research is an imperfect moral duty: a response to John Harris
- Rescuing the duty to rescue
- The use of cost-effectiveness by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): no(t yet an) exemplar of a deliberative process
- It’s not NICE to discriminate