Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 423-429

  Hofmann, Björn Morten ^a,b,c  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^b Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Health Services   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Ethics; Methodology; Moral philosophy; Normative

Indexed keywords

HEALTH; HEALTH CARE; REFLECTION; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING; TECHNOLOGY;

ETHICS; METHODOLOGY; MORAL PHILOSOPHY; NORMATIVE;

PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS;

DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MORALITY; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT; TECHNOLOGY;

DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MORALS; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 53149126519     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462308080550     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Andersen S. MTV og etik, organisation og sundhedsøkonomi. [HTA and ethics, organization and health economy] In: Sigmund H, Kristensen FB, eds. MTV, sundhedstjenesteforskning og klinisk praksis. Rapport fra symposium om evidensbaseret sundhedsvæsen. Copenhagen: Statens Institut for Medicinsk Teknologivurdering 2000. http://www.mtv-instituttet.dk.
2. Andersen S. Etikken. [Ethics]. In: Ingerslev HJ, et al. eds. Prœimplantationsdiagnostik - en medicinsk teknologivurdering. Copenhagen: Medicinsk Teknologivurdering - puljeprojekter; 2002;2:78-100.
3. Ashcroft RE. Health technology assessment. The concise encyclopedia of the ethics of new technologies. San Diego: Academic Press; 2001:235-244.
4. Autti-Rämö I, Mäkelá M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: An eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:1-8.
5. Banta HD. Foreword. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:93-95.
6. Banta D. Perry S. A history of ISTAHC: A personal perspective on its first 10 years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:430-453.
7. Blancquaert I, Cleret deLangavant G, Bouchard L. L'évaluation des technologies de la santé à l'ère de la génomique. Le défi de la complexité. Ruptures, revue transdisciplinaire en santé. 2002;9:22-38.
8. Braunack-Mayer AJ. Ethics and health technology assessment: Handmaiden and/or critic? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:307-312.
9. Caron L. Integrating ethics into HTA. (Presentation at the HTAi congress in Rome June 20th 2005). http://www.aetmis.gouv.qc.ca/site/276.448.0.0. 1.0.phtml.
10. Clausen C, Yoshinaka Y. Social shaping of technology in TA and HTA. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:221-246.
11. Cleret de Langavant G. Bioéthique: Méthode et complexité. Québec: Les Presses de l'Université du Québec; 2001.
12. Dreyfus HL. Heidegger on gaining a free relation to technology. In: Schrader-Frechette K, Westra L, eds. Technology and values. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 1997:107-114.
13. Droste S, Gerhardus A, Kollek R. Methods for integrating ethical aspects and social values in short HTA-reports. An international inventory. Cologne, Germany: German Agency of Health Technology Assessment at German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information (DAHTA) (DIMDI); 2003:9.
14. EUR-ASSESS Project Subgroup. Report on methodology: Methodological guidance for the conduct of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13:186-219.
15. Giacomini M, Miller F, Browman G. Confronting the "gray zones" of technology assessment: Evaluating genetic testing services for public insurance coverage in Canada. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:301-316.
16. Giacomini M. One of these things is not like the others: The idea of precedence in health technology assessment and coverage decisions. Milbank Q. 2005;83:193-223.
17. Grunwald A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:175-193.
18. Heitman E. Ethical issues in technology assessment: Conceptual categories and procedural considerations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:544-566.
19. Hennen L. Biomedical and bioethical issues in parliamentary TA and in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:207-220.
20. Hofmann B. Toward a procedure for integrating moral issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:312-318.
21. Hofmann B. The technological invention of disease - on disease, technology and values. Thesis. Oslo: University of Oslo, 2002.
22. Hofmann B. On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis Prax. 2005;3:277-295.
23. Hofmann B. When means become ends: Technology producing values. Seminar.net - Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning 2006;2. http://www.seminar.net/volume-2-issue-2-2006/when-means-become-ends-technology- producing-values.
24. HTAi and INAHTA. Resources for health technology assessment. http://www.inahta.org/upload/HTA_resources/ AboutHTA_Resources_for_HTA.pdf.
25. Ihde D. Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press; 1990.
26. INAHTA Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Glossary, 2006. http://www.inahta.org/HTA/Glossary/#_H.
27. INAHTA - The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. http://www.inahta.org/INAHTA/. Accessed 25 June 2007.
28. Jonsson E, Banta HD, Henshall C, et al. Summary report of the ECHTA/ECAHI project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:218-237.
29. Krones T, Neuwohner E, Bock K, et al. Attitudes of patients, healthcare professionals and ethicists towards embryonic stem cell research and donation of gametes and embryos in Germany. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. www. rbmonline.com/Article/2420. Accessed 29 September 2006.
30. Krones T, Schlueter E, Manolopoulus K, et al. Public, expert and patient's opinions on preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in Germany. Reproductive Biomedicine Online. www.rbmonline.com/Article/1547. Accessed 10 November 2004.
31. Lampe K, Mäkelä M. HTA core model for medical and surgical interventions. First public draft, revised 11th of July 2007. http://www.eunethta.net/upload/WP4/EUnetHTA_WP4_Core ModelforInterventions_FirstPublicDraftRevised-2007-07-11. pdf. Accessed 2007.
32. Lehoux P, Blume S. Technology assessment and the sociopolitics of health technologies. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2000;25:1083-1120.
33. Lehoux P, Williams-Jones B. Mapping the integration of social and ethical issues in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:9-16.
34. Lehoux P. The problem of health technology. Policy implications for modern health care systems. New York: Routledge; 2006.
35. Lehoux P, Tailliez S, Denis J-L, Hivon M. Redefining HTA in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:325-336.
36. Maynard A, McDaid D. Evaluating health interventions: Exploiting the potential. Health Policy. 2003;63:215-226.
37. Molewijk AC, Stiggelbout AM, Otten W, Dupuis HM, Kievit J. Implicit normativity in evidence-based medicine: A plea for integrated empirical ethics research. Health Care Anal. 2003;11:69-92.
38. Musschenga AM. Empirical ethics, context -sensitivity, and contextualism. J Med Philos. 2005;30:467-490.
39. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Development of medical technologies: Opportunities for assessment. Washington, DC: United States Congress; 1976.
40. Reuzel RP, van der Wilt GJ, ten Have HA, de Vries Robbe PF. Reducing normative bias in health technology assessment: Interactive evaluation and casuistry. Med Health Care Philos. 1999;2:255-263.
41. Reuzel RPB. Interactive technology assessment of paediatric cochlear implantation. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2:119-137.
42. Reuzel R, Van der Wilt GJ. Health technology assessment and evaluation: Back to the basics? Evaluation. 2000;6:383-398.
43. Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J, eds. Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. Baltimore; Johns Hopkins University Press; 1995.
44. Saarni S, Hofmann B, Lampe K, Lühmann D, Mäkelä M, Velasco-Garrido M, Autti-Rämö I. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2008; 86(8):617-623.
45. Skorupinski B, Ott K. Technology assessment and ethics. Poiesis Prax. 2002;1:95-122.
46. ten Have HA. Medical technology assessment and ethics. Ambivalent relations. Hastings Cent Rep. 1995;25:13-19.
47. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:71-76.
48. Schrader-Frechette K, Westra L. Technology and values. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 1997.
49. Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Proceed with care: Final report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa: Canada Communications Group-Publishing; 1993.
50. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Strategies for medical technology assessment. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1982:200-201.
51. Van der Wildt GJ, Reutzel R, Banta HJ. The ethics of assessing health technologies. Theor Med Bioeth. 2000;21:101-113.
52. Vos R, Willems DL. Technology in medicine: Ontology, epistemology, ethics and social philosophy at the crossroads. Theor Med Bioeth. 2000;21:1-7.