• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Reframing cancer: challenging the discourse on cancer and cancer drugs-a Norwegian perspective : Reframing Cancer.重新定义癌症:挑战关于癌症和癌症药物的话语——挪威视角:重新定义癌症。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Sep 21;22(1):126. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00693-5.
2
[Rationing in German health care with particular consideration of oncology: view points of German stakeholders--a qualitative interview study].[德国医疗保健中的配给,特别考虑肿瘤学:德国利益相关者的观点——一项定性访谈研究]
Gesundheitswesen. 2015 Jan;77(1):8-15. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1367021. Epub 2014 Apr 2.
3
Just caring: defining a basic benefit package.仅仅是关怀:界定基本福利套餐。
J Med Philos. 2011 Dec;36(6):589-611. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhr052. Epub 2011 Dec 13.
4
The moral roots of environmental attitudes.环境态度的道德根源。
Psychol Sci. 2013 Jan 1;24(1):56-62. doi: 10.1177/0956797612449177. Epub 2012 Dec 10.
5
Looking at discourse in a literature review of nursing texts.审视护理文本的文献综述中的论述。
J Adv Nurs. 1996 Jun;23(6):1155-61. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.12612.x.
6
Care theory and the ideal of neutrality in public moral discourse.关怀理论与公共道德话语中的中立理想。
J Med Philos. 1998 Apr;23(2):170-89. doi: 10.1076/jmep.23.2.170.8920.
7
Moral Distress and Resilience Associated with Cancer Care Priority Setting in a Resource-Limited Context.资源有限情境下癌症照护优先排序相关的道德困境和适应力
Oncologist. 2021 Jul;26(7):e1189-e1196. doi: 10.1002/onco.13818. Epub 2021 May 28.
8
[The national public discourse on priority setting in health care in German print media].[德国平面媒体上关于医疗保健领域优先事项设定的全国性公共讨论]
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(6):389-96. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.007. Epub 2012 Jun 28.
9
Justice and solidarity in priority setting in health care.医疗保健资源分配中的公平与团结
Health Care Anal. 2003 Dec;11(4):325-43. doi: 10.1023/B:HCAN.0000010061.71961.87.
10
Public health care in Europe: moral aspirations, ideological obsessions, and structural pitfalls in a post-enlightenment culture.欧洲的公共医疗保健:后启蒙文化中的道德抱负、意识形态执念与结构缺陷
J Med Philos. 2015 Apr;40(2):221-62. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhu080. Epub 2015 Feb 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Attitudes towards priority setting in the norwegian health care system: a general population survey.挪威医疗保健系统中的优先排序态度:一项一般人群调查。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Apr 5;22(1):444. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07806-9.

本文引用的文献

1
Pricing of pharmaceuticals is becoming a major challenge for health systems.药品定价正成为卫生系统面临的一项重大挑战。
BMJ. 2020 Jan 13;368:l4627. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4627.
2
Escaping the scarcity loop.摆脱稀缺循环。
Lancet. 2019 Jul 13;394(10193):112-113. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31556-9. Epub 2019 Jul 11.
3
Quizartinib versus salvage chemotherapy in relapsed or refractory FLT3-ITD acute myeloid leukaemia (QuANTUM-R): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.Quizartinib 与挽救性化疗治疗复发或难治性 FLT3-ITD 急性髓系白血病(QuANTUM-R):一项多中心、随机、对照、开放标签、3 期临床试验。
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jul;20(7):984-997. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30150-0. Epub 2019 Jun 4.
4
COMPare: a prospective cohort study correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials in real time.COMPare:一项前瞻性队列研究,实时纠正和监测58项报告有误的试验。
Trials. 2019 Feb 14;20(1):118. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3173-2.
5
Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13.欧洲药品管理局批准的癌症药物对总生存期和生活质量有益的证据可得性:2009 - 2013年药物批准情况的回顾性队列研究
BMJ. 2017 Oct 4;359:j4530. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4530.
6
"Just caring": can we afford the ethical and economic costs of circumventing cancer drug resistance?“仅仅关心”:我们能否承担规避癌症耐药性的伦理和经济成本?
J Pers Med. 2013 Jul 16;3(3):124-43. doi: 10.3390/jpm3030124.
7
The crisis of capitalism and the marketisation of health care: the implications for public health professionals.资本主义危机与医疗保健市场化:对公共卫生专业人员的影响。
J Public Health Res. 2012 Dec 7;1(3):236-9. doi: 10.4081/jphr.2012.e37. eCollection 2012 Dec 28.
8
From sick role to practices of health and illness.从病患角色到健康和疾病的实践。
Med Educ. 2013 Jan;47(1):18-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04298.x.
9
Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health.消除一代人之间的差距:通过针对健康的社会决定因素采取行动实现健康公平。
Lancet. 2008 Nov 8;372(9650):1661-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6.
10
Aspects on priority settings in cancer treatment and care.癌症治疗与照护中的优先事项设定方面
Acta Oncol. 2005;44(7):667-72. doi: 10.1080/02841860500244369.

重新定义癌症:挑战关于癌症和癌症药物的话语——挪威视角:重新定义癌症。

Reframing cancer: challenging the discourse on cancer and cancer drugs-a Norwegian perspective : Reframing Cancer.

机构信息

Centre for Cancer Biomarkers, Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.

出版信息

BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Sep 21;22(1):126. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00693-5.

DOI:10.1186/s12910-021-00693-5
PMID:34548091
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8454291/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

As the range of therapeutic options in the field of oncology increases, so too does the strain on health care budgets. The imbalance between what is medically possible and financially feasible is frequently rendered as an issue of tragic choices, giving rise to public controversies around health care rationing.

MAIN BODY

We analyse the Norwegian media discourse on expensive cancer drugs and identify four underlying premises: (1) Cancer drugs are de facto expensive, and one does not and should not question why. (2) Cancer drugs have an indubitable efficacy. (3) Any lifetime gained for a cancer patient is an absolute good, and (4) cancer patients and doctors own the truth about cancer. Applying a principle-based approach, we argue that these premises should be challenged on moral grounds. Within the Norwegian public discourse, however, the premises largely remain unchallenged due to what we find to be unjustified claims of moral superiority. We therefore explore alternative framings of the issue of expensive cancer drugs and discuss their potential to escape the predicament of tragic choices.

CONCLUSIONS

In a media discourse that has seemingly stagnated, awareness of the framings within it is necessary in order to challenge the current tragic choices predicament the discourse finds itself in. In order to allow for a discourse not solely concerned with the issue of tragic choices, the premises that underlie it must be subjected to critical examination. As the field of oncology advances rapidly, we depend on a discussion of its opportunities and challenges that is meaningful, and that soberly addresses the future of cancer care-both its potential and its limits.

摘要

背景

随着肿瘤学领域治疗选择范围的扩大,医疗保健预算的压力也越来越大。医学上可行与经济上可行之间的不平衡经常被视为一个悲惨选择的问题,引发了围绕医疗保健配给的公众争议。

正文

我们分析了挪威媒体关于昂贵癌症药物的话语,并确定了四个基本前提:(1)癌症药物实际上是昂贵的,人们不应该也不应该质疑为什么。(2)癌症药物具有不可置疑的疗效。(3)癌症患者获得的任何寿命都是绝对的好处,(4)癌症患者和医生拥有关于癌症的真相。应用基于原则的方法,我们认为这些前提应该从道德角度提出质疑。然而,在挪威的公共话语中,由于我们发现对道德优越感的不合理主张,这些前提在很大程度上仍然没有受到质疑。因此,我们探讨了昂贵癌症药物问题的替代框架,并讨论了它们逃避悲惨选择困境的潜力。

结论

在一个看似停滞不前的媒体话语中,必须意识到其中的框架,以便挑战当前话语所陷入的悲惨选择困境。为了允许进行不仅仅关注悲惨选择问题的讨论,必须对其基础前提进行批判性审查。随着肿瘤学领域的快速发展,我们依赖于有意义的讨论其机遇和挑战,清醒地应对癌症护理的未来——包括其潜力和限制。