Switch to: References

Citations of:

Miscellaneous

Hastings Center Report 32 (2):35-36 (2012)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Limits to Setting Limits on Critical-Care Delivery: Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Balancing Legitimate Critical-Care Interests: Setting Defensible Care Limits Through Policy Development”.Jeffrey Kirby - 2016 - American Journal of Bioethics 16 (1):5-8.
    Critical-care decision making is highly complex, given the need for health care providers and organizations to consider, and constructively respond to, the diverse interests and perspectives of a variety of legitimate stakeholders. Insights derived from an identified set of ethics-related considerations have the potential to meaningfully inform inclusive and deliberative policy development that aims to optimally balance the competing obligations that arise in this challenging, clinical decision-making domain. A potential, constructive outcome of such policy engagement is the collaborative development of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Balancing Legitimate Critical-Care Interests: Setting Defensible Care Limits Through Policy Development.Jeffrey Kirby - 2016 - American Journal of Bioethics 16 (1):38-47.
    Critical-care decision making is highly complex, given the need for health care providers and organizations to consider, and constructively respond to, the diverse interests and perspectives of a variety of legitimate stakeholders. Insights derived from an identified set of ethics-related considerations have the potential to meaningfully inform inclusive and deliberative policy development that aims to optimally balance the competing obligations that arise in this challenging, clinical decision-making domain. A potential, constructive outcome of such policy engagement is the collaborative development of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Priority setting in health care: trends and models from Scandinavian experiences. [REVIEW]Bjørn Hofmann - 2013 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16 (3):349-356.
    The Scandinavian welfare states have public health care systems which have universal coverage and traditionally low influence of private insurance and private provision. Due to raises in costs, elaborate public control of health care, and a significant technological development in health care, priority setting came on the public agenda comparatively early in the Scandinavian countries. The development of health care priority setting has been partly homogeneous and appears to follow certain phases. This can be of broader interest as it may (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  • Justice, Transparency and the Guiding Principles of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.Victoria Charlton - 2022 - Health Care Analysis 30 (2):115-145.
    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the UK’s primary healthcare priority-setting body, responsible for advising the National Health Service in England on which technologies to fund and which to reject. Until recently, the normative approach underlying this advice was described in a 2008 document entitled ‘Social value judgements: Principles for the development of NICE guidance’ (SVJ). In January 2020, however, NICE replaced SVJ with a new articulation of its guiding principles. Given the significant evolution of NICE’s (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation