The rationing debate: Maximising the health of the whole community. The case against: what the principal objective of the NHS should really be.
作者信息
Harris J
机构信息
Institute of Medicine, Law, and Bioethics, University of Manchester, Liverpool.
出版信息
BMJ. 1997 Mar 1;314(7081):669-72. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7081.669.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
The rationing debate: Maximising the health of the whole community. The case against: what the principal objective of the NHS should really be.配给制辩论：最大化整个社区的健康。反对观点：国民保健制度的主要目标究竟应该是什么。
BMJ. 1997 Mar 1;314(7081):669-72. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7081.669.
2
The rationing debate: Maximising the health of the whole community. The case for.配给制辩论：使整个社区的健康最大化。支持的理由。
BMJ. 1997 Mar 1;314(7081):667-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7081.667.
3
On being NICE in the UK: guidelines for technology appraisal for the NHS in England and Wales.英国的“国民健康与临床优化研究所”（NICE）：英格兰和威尔士国民医疗服务体系（NHS）技术评估指南
Health Econ. 2002 Apr;11(3):185-91. doi: 10.1002/hec.706.
4
The rationing debate. Central government should have a greater role in rationing decisions. The case against.配给制辩论。中央政府在配给决策中应发挥更大作用。反对观点。
BMJ. 1997 Mar 29;314(7085):970-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7085.970.
5
The rationing debate. Central government should have a greater role in rationing decisions. The case for.配给制辩论。中央政府在配给决策中应发挥更大作用。支持理由。
BMJ. 1997 Mar 29;314(7085):967-70. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7085.967.
6
The rationing debate. Defining a package of healthcare services the NHS is responsible for. The case for.配给制辩论。界定国民保健制度所负责的一揽子医疗服务。支持理由。
BMJ. 1997 Feb 15;314(7079):503-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.498.
7
Increasing National Health Service funding: implications for welfare and justice.增加国民医疗服务体系资金：对福利和公平的影响。
J Public Health Med. 2001 Mar;23(1):7-10. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/23.1.7.
8
Rationing and unfairness in the National Health Service: who is responsible, who is to blame and what can be done about it?国民医疗服务体系中的配给与不公平：谁负责、谁之过以及如何应对？
J Nurs Manag. 1996 Jul;4(4):187-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.1996.tb00049.x.
9
The rationing debate. Rationing within the NHS should be explicit. The case against.配给制辩论。国民医疗服务体系内的配给制应该是明确的。反对的理由。
BMJ. 1997 Apr 12;314(7087):1118-22. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7087.1118.
10
Building on the best--choice, responsiveness and equity in the NHS.基于英国国家医疗服务体系（NHS）中的最佳选择、响应能力和公平性。
Health Expect. 2004 Jun;7(2):176-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00276.x.
引用本文的文献
1
Entitlements to continued life and the evaluation of population health.延续生命的权利与人口健康评估
Rev Econ Des. 2022 Jun 17:1-19. doi: 10.1007/s10058-022-00303-9.
2
An axiomatic approach towards pandemic performance indicators.一种针对大流行绩效指标的公理方法。
Econ Model. 2022 Nov;116:105983. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2022.105983. Epub 2022 Aug 6.
3
Accountability for reasonableness: the relevance, or not, of exceptionality in resource allocation.合理性问责制：资源分配中特殊性的相关性与否。
Med Health Care Philos. 2015 May;18(2):217-27. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9592-7.
4
Representation or reason: consulting the public on the ethics of health policy.陈述或理由：就卫生政策伦理向公众咨询。
Health Care Anal. 2008 Dec;16(4):397-409. doi: 10.1007/s10728-007-0068-2. Epub 2007 Oct 6.
5
An integrated approach to resource allocation.资源分配的综合方法。
Health Care Anal. 2004 Jun;12(2):171-80. doi: 10.1023/B:HCAN.0000041189.67995.96.
6
Rationing and the health authority.医疗资源分配与卫生当局
BMJ. 1998 Oct 17;317(7165):1067-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.317.7165.1067.
Zotero 插件