Ageism and equality
This paper rebuts suggestions made by Littlejohns et al that NICE is not ageist by analysing the concept of ageism. It recognises the constraints that finite resources impose on decision making bodies such as NICE and then makes a number of positive suggestions as to how NICE might more effectively and more justly intervene in the allocation of scarce resources for health.
- behavioural research
- political science
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.
- Law, ethics and medicine
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Wickedness or folly? The ethics of NICE’s decisions
- It’s not NICE to discriminate
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence appraisal and ageism
- Does NICE apply the rule of rescue in its approach to highly specialised technologies?
- NICE is dead; long live NICE
- NICE discrimination
- All health is not equal: the use of modifiers in NICE technology appraisal
- Rights, responsibilities and NICE: a rejoinder to Harris
- Audit of data redaction practices in NICE technology appraisals from 1999 to 2019
- Incremental benefits of novel pharmaceuticals in the UK: a cross-sectional analysis of NICE technology appraisals from 2010 to 2020