Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T07:48:26.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High Technology Medicine and Quality of Life

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Bryan Jennett
Bryan Jennett
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A common criticism of high technology is that therapeutic objectives are sometimes secured at too high a price in loss of quality of life. Certainly some interventions serve only to prolong life that is already of unacceptable quality to the patient (some rescues in intensive care and salvage surgery for cancer). Others leave the patient with less good quality of life than he enjoyed before treatment, either because the crisis that called for rescue had lasting effects (incomplete recovery from severe head injury) or because the intervention itself had inevitable adverse effects (mastectomy, laryngectomy, colostomy). Yet some life-extending technologies can improve dramatically the quality of a patient's life (renal and heart transplantation), while others are directed primarily at improving quality of life (hip replacement and coronary bypass surgery). When the ultimate result of technological intervention is improved quality of life or a reasonable extension of life of quality, then some temporary impairment of life's quality may be justifiable. The problem is to discover in which clinical circumstances the benefits expected from high technology are both great enough, and are also likely enough to be realized, to justify the resources that have to be expended by society and the inevitable burdens that have to be borne by the patient (11).

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 51 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

17.McNeil, B. J., Weichselbaum, R., & Pauker, S. G.Fallacy of the five-year survival: lung cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 1978, 299, 1397–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Najam, J. M. & Levine, S.Evaluating the impact of medical care and technologies on the quality of life: a review and critique. Social Science and Medicine, 1981, 15, 107–15.Google Scholar
19.Petch, M. C.Coronary bypass. British Medical Journal, 1983, 287, 514–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Stoll, B. A. Quality of life as an objective in cancer treatment. In Stoll, B. A., (ed.), Cancer treatment: end-point evaluation. New York: John Wiley, 1983.Google Scholar
21.Teeling-Smith, G. (ed.) Measuring the social benefit of medicine. London: Office of Health Economics, 1983.Google Scholar
22.Williams, A.Economics of coronary artery bypass grafting. British Medical Journal, 1985, 291, 326–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed