‘Exceptional circumstances’ - access to low priority treatments after the Herceptin case

Clinical Ethics

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 205-208

  Newdick, Christopher ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84992885233     PISSN: 14777509     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/147775006779151139     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Section 97, National Health Service Act 1977. See generally, Newdick C. Who Should We Treat - Rights, Rationing and Resources in the NHS. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
2. R v N and E Devon HA, ex p Coughlan [1999] Lloyds Rep Med 306
3. On the committee we have established in Berkshire, see Newdick C. Accountability for Rationing - Theory into Practice. J Law, Med Ethics 2005;33:660
4. R v NW Lancashire HA ex p A, D & G [1999] Lloyd's Rep Med, 309, 412
5. Rogers v Swindon PCT [2006] EWCA Civ 392.
6. Wagstaff A. Beyond the Herceptin hype - we need to raise the level of debate. Cancer World 2006;March-April:14-24
7. [2001] EWHC 535
8. In a way that did not seek to balance the clinical and costs implications of its widespread use. See Wagstaff A. Beyond the Herceptin hype - we need to raise the level of debate. Cancer World 2006;March-April:14-24
9. See para 27 of the Court of Appeal's judgment. See also NHS Chief Executive Bulletin, 2005/2006;300. In principle, political intervention of this nature is undesirable because it may place in question the independence of the licensing authority and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.
10. At para 81
11. Rogers v Swindon PCT [2006] EWHC 171, para 71
12. And conversely, those less able to benefit from care would be less likely to merit care. See Shortland v Northland Health Ltd [1998] 1 NZLR 433 concerning access to kidney dialysis of a patient who, by virtue of his illness, could not manage his treatment regime
13. At para 77
14. R (on app Longstaff) v Newcastle NHS PCT [2004] Lloyds Rep Med 400, para 56(3)
15. (2006) Case C-372/04
16. At para 68
17. See Bensaid v United Kingdom [2001] 33 EHRR 205 and the anomalous exception of D v United Kingdom [1997] 42 BMLR 149 208