Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T18:55:19.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Must a New Approach to Treatment Be Introduced? The Ethics of Technology Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Stephan Tanneberger
Stephan Tanneberger
Affiliation:
Academy of Sciences of the German Democratic Republic
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prior to the nationwide diffusion of a new technology, evidence must be assembled to demonstrate that a new technology is, in the terminology of WHO, appropriate. Not everything that is new in health technology is good; not all that is good is needed. It is by no means unethical to demand adequate assessment of new technology before it is diffused. On the contrary, it is unethical to squander resources on hazardous and uneffective treatment. Of the methods available for assessment, the randomized clinical trial is among the most valuable. Randomized clinical trials cannot, however, solve all problems. Speed is a critical element. It is not ethical to permit excessive delay. Balanced, relevant, and informative studies must be conducted as quickly as possible and with a maximum of international collaboration. WHO has a valuable role to play in advising on, coordinating, supporting, and disseminating the findings of such studies.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 113 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Ebeling, K. Trends in cervical cancer in Berlin, GDR. Personal communication, 1986.Google Scholar
Flamant, R. Conclusions. In Cascinelli, N., Davis, H. L., Flamant, R, Kenis, Y., Lalanne, C. M., Muggia, F. M., Rozencweig, M., Staquet, M. J., & Veronesi, U., (eds.), Methods and impact of cont rolled therapeutic trials in cancer. Geneva: International Union against Cancer (UICC Technical Report Series; 59), 1981.Google Scholar
Kaprio, L. Personal communication, 1983.Google Scholar
Kieser, R. Personal communication, 1986.Google Scholar
Martini, P.Ueber die aerztliche Fuehrung von unheilbar Krebskranken. Internist (Berlin) 1963, 4, 83–86.Google Scholar
Weinstein, M. C.Cost-effectiveness analysis for clinical procedures in oncology. Bull. cancer (Paris) 1980, 67, 491–500.Google ScholarPubMed
Weinstein, M. C. & Stason, W. B.. Foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis for health and medical practices. New England Journal of Medicine, 1977, 296, 716–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO. Glossary of terms. Geneva: 1984.Google Scholar