Entwistle V A, Watt I S, Bradbury R, Pehl L J
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York.
BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1587-91. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1587.
The case of a girl with leukaemia, known as Child B, hit the headlines in March 1995 when her father refused to accept the advice of doctors who counselled against further treatment and took Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority to court for refusing to fund chemotherapy and a second bone transplant for her in the private sector. British national newspapers varied greatly in the way they covered the case. Some paid little attention to clinical considerations and presented the case as an example of rationing based on financial considerations. Their selective presentations meant that anyone reading just one newspaper would have received only limited and partial information. If members of the public are to participate in debates about treatment decisions and health care rationing, means other than the media will need to be found to inform and involve them.
1995年3月,一名患白血病的女孩(称为儿童B)的案例成为头条新闻。当时,她的父亲拒绝接受医生的建议,医生们劝告不要再进行治疗,而她的父亲则将剑桥和亨廷顿卫生局告上法庭,原因是该局拒绝为她在私立医院进行化疗和第二次骨髓移植提供资金。英国全国性报纸对该案例的报道方式差异很大。一些报纸很少关注临床考量,而是将该案例作为基于财务考量进行配给的一个例子。它们的选择性报道意味着,只阅读一份报纸的人只能获得有限和片面的信息。如果公众要参与关于治疗决策和医疗保健配给的辩论,就需要找到媒体以外的其他途径来告知并让他们参与进来。