Clinical trials and legal jeopardy

On neither side of the Atlantic have research ethics committees found a satisfactory way of ensuring that all serious side-effects of new treatments being studied are noted and reported to them, without being deluged in reports of minor adverse events. The author of the following paper is probably the leading historian of psychopharmacology: he discusses the issue, and its implications for RECs, in the light of the serious side-effects of the new generation of SSR antidepressants.     

Double jeopardy and the veil of ignorance--a reply.

This paper discusses the attempt in this issue of the journal by Peter Singer, John McKie, Helga Kuhse and Jeff Richardson, to defend QALYs against the argument from double jeopardy which I first outlined in 1987. In showing how the QALY and other similar measures which combine life expectancy and quality of life and use these to justify particular allocations of health care resource, remain vulnerable to the charge of double jeopardy I am able to clarify some of the central issues concerning the value of life. In particular, the idea that the value of a life varies with its life expectancy and with its quality, understood in terms of its richness, variety, success etc, is subjected to special examination. It is shown how defenders of QALYs are committed to the view that so far from all lives being of equal value, all lives are necessarily of subtly different value. The paper then analyses the use to which the notorious 'veil of ignorance' has been put both by Singer et al and by others and shows how this device of John Rawls's cannot do the work so often assigned to it. The paper then considers the issue of hypothetical consent and the role that it can play in justifying disposing of the lives of people who have not in fact consented to their lives being disposed of in particular ways. Finally, the paper makes some points about the comprehensive nature of the data collection and storage which would be required by QALY advocates and points out the independent problems attaching to licensing such comprehensive collection and use of personal data.     

Double jeopardy and the use of QALYs in health care allocation.

The use of the Quality Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) as a measure of the benefit obtained from health care expenditure has been attacked on the ground that it gives a lower value to preserving the lives of people with a permanent disability or illness than to preserving the lives of those who are healthy and not disabled. The reason for this is that the quality of life of those with illness or disability is ranked, on the QALY scale, below that of someone without a disability or illness. Hence we can, other things being equal, gain more QALYs by saving the lives of those without a permanent disability or illness than by saving the lives of those who are disadvantaged in these ways. But to do so puts these disadvantaged people under a kind of double jeopardy. Not only do they suffer from the disability or illness, but because of it, a low priority is given to forms of health care that can preserve their lives. This, so the objection runs, is unjust or unfair. This article assesses this objection to the use of QALYs as a basis for allocating health care resources. It seeks to determine what is sound in the double jeopardy objection, and then to show that the defender of QALYs has an adequate response to it.     

Double jeopardy, the equal value of lives and the veil of ignorance: a rejoinder to Harris.

Harris levels two main criticisms against our original defence of QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Years). First, he rejects the assumption implicit in the QALY approach that not all lives are of equal value. Second, he rejects our appeal to Rawls's veil of ignorance test in support of the QALY method. In the present article we defend QALYs against Harris's criticisms. We argue that some of the conclusions Harris draws from our view that resources should be allocated on the basis of potential improvements in quality of life and quantity of life are erroneous, and that others lack the moral implications Harris claims for them. On the other hand, we defend our claim that a rational egoist, behind a veil of ignorance, could consistently choose to allocate life-saving resources in accordance with the QALY method, despite Harris's claim that a rational egoist would allocate randomly if there is no better than a 50% chance of being the recipient.     

2001年我国医药研究的若干进展

随着国内外生命科学和生物技术等的飞速发展,我国医药技术在2001年取得了长足的进步。提前完成了我国所承担的人类基因组汁划中的1％测序任务,到2000年,中国科学家在功能基因研究和基因组多样性领域共完成研究论文1850篇,遍及医药各领域,研究手段和水平可于国际先进水平媲美,中国完全有条件在“后基因时代”成为主角之一。     

小儿耳鼻喉手术麻醉的新进展

因小儿耳鼻喉手术刺激强,时间短,且常与气道相关,故麻醉的控制有一定难度,现对国内外现阶段小儿耳鼻喉手术麻醉的改良方法及新观点进行评述,以期对临床工作有较好的指导意义。     

Malaria in children in Birmingham in the 1970s

Thirty-two children with malaria were admitted to Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham, in the 1970s. None was admitted before 1974 and there was a rapid increase after that. All the infections were due to Plasmodium vivax and occurred in children of Asian immigrant families who had been born in or had visited India or Pakistan apart from one infant born in England who acquired the disease transplacentally. All presented within 12 months of entering or re-entering the United Kingdom. The clinical features of the 32 patients have been analysed and it is suggested that more effort should be made to educate travellers about the need for anti-malarial chemoprophylaxis and the necessity to continue it for one month after return.     

成都市属医院1，175例儿童支气管肺炎住院费用分析

为探讨成都市不同级别医疗机构儿童支气管肺炎单病种费用水平以及不同收费项目占总费用的比例特点及控制医疗费用的有效途径,为患者自主选择就诊医疗机构提供参考指导,对成都市卫生局所属不同级别医院儿童支气管肺炎住院医疗费用分析如下。1资料与方法1.1资料来自成都市卫生局2     

2005年广西流动人口疟疾监测结果分析

目的了解广西流动人员疟疾流行现状,进而提出针对性防治措施。方法收集全区网络直报疫情资料和各级疾病预防控制机构疟疾监测数据进行分析。结果2005年广西流动人口发热病人平均疟原虫阳性率为0·33%。80·62%的病人为本地居民外出到疟疾流行区务工感染所致。以从事护林/砍伐比例最高,占44·19%。结论加强返乡流动人口疟疾监测是巩固广西疟疾防治的关键所在。