Search

The use of religious signs in schools, as in other areas of the public sphere, is a current topic, given that legislative changes are constantly taking place. In countries as close as Germany, France, England and Spain, the legislation governing the wearing of the Islamic veil differs considerably due to their different historical, cultural, social, economic and idiosyncratic contexts. Leaving aside the ethnocentric perspective, in this paper a comparative study of the situation was carried out in these four countries. The main results include a negative attitude towards the wearing of the Islamic veil in France as opposed to a more tolerant position in England and Spain. In the case of Germany, there is a greater diversity of positions due to the characteristic autonomy of each federal state. Given the different types of veils, the reasons for wearing them, the traditions of each society and regional idiosyncrasies, it is considered that, a priori, there should not be a fight against its use, although it is recommended to adopt a belligerent stance against its imposition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The appraisal of medicines is often a complex and iterative process. We compared the health technology assessment (HTA) process in England and France taking as a case study the example of ixazomib for multiple myeloma. Methods: We undertook an analysis of eight relevant published documents identifed from the websites of the French and English HTA bodies (HAS and NICE, respectively). We analyse patients' availability of ixazomib resulting in the different stages of the appraisal process. Results: We identified differences in the assessment, one of these being the use of an appraisal scope in England allowing the differentiation of populations and comparators according to previously approved treatments. Ixazomib became available earlier in France as part of an early access programme, but the availability was soon discontinued for newly eligible patients following an HAS determination that Ixazomib yielded no additional benefit. This opinion resulted in long pricing discussions. In England, despite the absence of an early access programme and following a process that included cost-effectiveness evaluation combined with pricing discussions, the medicine was fairly rapidly recommended for use. Conclusions: Differences in the HTA process may result in appreciable differences in time from marketing authorisation to health service adoption of newly licensed drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]