Search

The NHS in England is an organisation undergoing substantial change. The passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, consolidates and builds on previous health policies and introduces further 'market-style' reforms of the NHS. One of the main aspects of these reforms is to encourage private and third sector providers to deliver NHS services. The rationale for this is to foster a more competitive market in healthcare to encourage greater efficiency and innovation. This changing healthcare environment in the English NHS sharpens the need for attention to be paid to the ethical operation of healthcare organisations. All healthcare organisations need to consider the ethical aspects of their operation, whether state or privately run. However, the changes in the type of organisations used to provide healthcare (such as commercial companies) can create new relationships and ethical tensions. This paper will chart the development of organisational ethics as a concern in applied ethics and how it arose in the USA largely owing to changes in the organisation of healthcare financing and provision. It will be argued that an analogous transition is happening in the NHS in England. The paper will conclude with suggestions for the development of organisational ethics programmes to address some of the possible ethical issues raised by this new healthcare environment that incorporates both private and public sector providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is currently an unrecognised conflict between the utilitarian nature of the overall NHS and the basic deontology of the doctor-patient interaction. This conflict leads to mistrust and misunderstanding between managers and clinicians. This misunderstanding is bad for both doctors and managers, and also leads to waste of time and resources, and poorer services to patients. The utilitarian thinkers (mainly managers and politicians) tend to value finite, short term, evidence based technical interventions, delivered according to specifications and contracts. They appear happy to break care up into smaller pieces, which can then be commissioned from multiple providers. The deontological thinkers (mainly doctors and other clinicians) tend to think about care delivered through a long term continuous relationship, and regard that relationship as therapeutic and salutogenic in itself. To them breaking care up into smaller fragments is a denial of what caring is really about. Very rarely are either or both sides of this debate fully aware of where their powerfully felt and often well argued positions start from. In this paper we offer an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of both moral viewpoints as applied in the UK NHS context and we suggest a way in which they can be reconciled, provided neither is pushed too far or too hard against the other. We believe this reconciliation would be good for patients, doctors, managers and improve the service as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Significant changes are proposed for the research ethics system governing the review of the conduct of medical research in the UK. This paper examines these changes and whether they will meet the aimed-for goal of improving the efficiency of the research ethics system. The author concludes that, unfortunately, they will not and thus should be rejected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK government has recently taken steps to exclude certain groups of migrants from free treatment under the National Health Service, most controversially from treatment for HIV. Whether this discrimination can have any coherent ethical basis is questioned in this paper. The exclusion of migrants of any status from any welfare system cannot be ethically justified because the distinction between citizens and migrants cannot be an ethical one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presently, there is a movement in the UK research governance framework towards what is referred to as proportional ethical review. Proportional ethical review is the notion that the level of ethical review and scrutiny given to a research project ought to reflect the level of ethical risk represented by that project. Relatively innocuous research should receive relatively minimal review and relatively risky research should receive intense scrutiny. Although conceptually attractive, the notion of proportional review depends on the possibility of effectively identifying the risks and ethical issues posed by an application with some process other than a full review by a properly constituted research ethics committee. In this paper, it is argued that this cannot be achieved and that the only appropriate means of identifying risks and ethical issues is consideration by a full committee. This implies that the suggested changes to the National Health Service research ethics system presently being consulted on should be strenuously resisted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research ethics review is an important process, designed to protect participants in medical research. However, it is increasingly criticised for failing to meet its aims. Here, two researchers reflect on their experiences of applying for ethical approval of observational research in clinical settings. They highlight some problems faced by reviewers and researchers and propose a two-stage ethical review process that would alert researchers to the committee's concerns and allow them to give a more considered response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the first five of the 24 recommendations that outline the British Medical Association (BMA) proposals for the high-level governance of the British National Health Service (NHS). These include a recommendation which suggests that a constitution for the NHS should settle an agreement between the government, the NHS and the public. Another implies that an independent board of governors must be established in order to divide national politics from day-to-day running of the NHS.

Focuses on issues related to medical ethics in Great Britain. Public health implications of immigrations and asylum seekers; Discussion on issues of abortion legislation; Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act; Details of the criminalisation of HIV; Information on National Health Services guidelines on chaplaincy and the provision of spiritual care.

Background: Priority setting is necessary in current healthcare services. 0iscussion of fair process has highlighted the value of developing reasons for allocation decisions on the basis of experience gained from real cases. Aim: To identify the reasons that those with experience of real decision-making concerning resource allocation think relevant in deciding on the priority of a new but expensive drug treatment. Methods: Semistructured interviews with members of committees with responsibility for making resource allocation decisions at a local level in the British National Health Service, analysed using modified grounded theory. Results: 22 interviews were carried out. 14 reasons were identified. Four reasons were almost universally considered most important: cost effectiveness; clinical effectiveness; equality and gross cost. No one reason was considered dominant. Some considerations, such as political directives and fear of litigation, were thought by many participants to distort decision-making. There was a substantial lack of agreement over the relevance of some reasons, such as the absence of alternative treatment for the condition. Conclusions: There is a clear consensus on the importance and role of a limited number of reasons in allocation decisions among participants. A focus on the process of decision-making, however, does not obviate the need for those involved in the process to engage with problematical ethical issues, nor for the importance of further ethical analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, commentators close to and within the UK government have claimed that patient choice can increase equity in the context of the National Health Service. This article critically examines the basis for this claim through analysis of recent speeches and publications authored by secretaries of state for health and their policy advisers. It is concluded that this claim has not developed prospectively from an analysis of the causes of healthcare inequity, or even with a consistent normative definition of equity. The limited justification that is "framed in causal explanations" of inequity has suffered from an apparent disregard of the available evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethics committees now require that individuals give informed consent to much health services research, in the same way as for clinical research. This is misguided. Existing ethical guidelines do not help us decide how to seek consent in these cases, and have allowed managerial experimentation to remain largely unchecked. Inappropriate requirements for individual consent can institutionalise health inequalities and reduce access to services for vulnerable groups. This undermines the fundamental purpose of the National Health Service (NHS), and ignores our rights and duties as its members, explored here. Alternative forms of community consent should be actively pursued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify ethical dilemmas experienced by occupational and physical therapists working in the UK National Health Service (NHS). To compare ethical contexts, themes and principles across the two groups.Design: A structured questionnaire was circulated to the managers of occupational and physical therapy services in England and Wales.Subjects: The questionnaires were given to 238 occupational and 249 physical therapists who conformed to set criteria.Results: Ethical dilemmas experienced during the previous six months were reported by 118 occupational and 107 physical therapists. The two groups were similar in age, grade, and years of experience. Fifty of the occupational therapy dilemmas occurred in mental health settings but no equivalent setting emerged for physical therapy. Different ethical themes emerged between the two groups, with the most common in occupational therapy being difficult/dangerous behaviour in patients and unprofessional staff behaviour, and for physical therapists resource limitations and treatment effectiveness. No differences were found in the ethical principles used.Conclusion: The ethical dilemmas reported by the therapists were primarily concerned with health care ethics, rather than the more dramatic ethics reported in much of the biomedical ethics literature. Differences were found between the two professional groups when ethical contexts and themes were compared but not when ethical principles were compared. This suggests that educators and researchers need to be aware of work settings and the interdisciplinary nature of employment as well as ethical principles held by individual therapists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The principle of informed consent is now well established within the National Health Service (NHS) in relation to any type of medical treatment. However, this ethical principle appears to be far less well established in relation to medical screening programmes such as Britain's national cervical screening programme. This article will critically examine the case for health care providers vigorously pursuing women to accept an invitation to be screened. It will discuss the type of information which women would need in order to make an informed decision about whether or not to be screened. The lack of such information in current patient leaflets on the "smear test" will then be documented. Finally, the article will explore possible ways of maximising women's autonomy in relation to the cervical screening programme without sacrificing any of its main benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opinion. Asserts that consumerism can be objectionable both within and beyond the health care market. How consumerist reforms in Great Britain have affected the provision of medical care; Goals of policy-making reflected in the reforms of the National Health Service; How medical care operates in theory; Nature of the internal market and patient's rights under consumerist reforms.

Examines the argument focusing on the smokers' rights to health care. Opposition based on the principles founded by the British National Health Service; Difficulties created by advocating smokers' health.

Harris' reply to our defence of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's (NICE) current cost-effectiveness procedures contains two further errors. First, he wrongly draws a conclusion from the fact that NICE does not and cannot evaluate all possible uses of healthcare resources at any one time and generally cannot know which National Health Service (NHS) activities would be displaced or which groups of patients would have to forgo health benefits: the inference is that no estimate is or can be made by NICE of the benefits to be forgone. This is a non-sequitur. Second, he asserts that it is a flaw at the heart of the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as an outcome measure that comparisons between people need to be made. Such comparisons do indeed have to be made, but this is not a consequence of the choice of any particular outcome measure, be it the QALY or anything else. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on consideration of social factors by National Health Service (NHS), taking into account the allocation of scarce resources. It states that the primary care trust (PCT) allows for patients to make claims for exceptional treatment by means of an individual funding review.

Reports on the plan of the British government to tighten its National Health Service rules for treating overseas visitors. Impact of the British immigration system on people living with AIDS; Association which expressed concern about the health of failed asylum seekers.