Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Not a NICE fallacy: a reply to Dr Quigley
  1. K Claxton1,
  2. A J Culyer2,3
  1. 1
    Centre for Health Economics, University of York, Heslington, York, UK
  2. 2
    Institute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3
    Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, Heslington, York, UK
  1. Professor A J Culyer, Department of Economics and Related Studies, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DO; ajc17{at}


A repudiation of Muireann Quigley’s argument that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) values and assesses the worth of people’s lives; together with an alternative account of what it appears that NICE actually does, why these procedures are not unreasonable and some of the unresolved problems, especially when making interpersonal comparisons of health, which remain for NICE or, indeed, anyone seeking to determine the contents of the benefits bundles of a public health insurance programme such as the NHS. Some other ethically dubious propositions by Dr Quigley are also rejected.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

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.


  • Competing interests: KC is a member of NICE’s Appraisals Committee and was a member of the working party that recommended NICE’s current methodology for economic appraisals. AJC was a member of the board of NICE that commissioned this work. Although no longer on the board, he now chairs the NICE Research and Development Advisory Committee.

Other content recommended for you