Advertisement

Health Care Analysis

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 59–71 | Cite as

Evidence-based Medicine: Why do Opponents and Proponents use the same Arguments?

  • A. Gerber
  • K. W. Lauterbach
Article

Abstract

There is quite some ethical controversy on Evidence-based Medicine (EbM) with regard to issues of physician autonomy as well as its allocative implications. Yet, there are some shortcomings in the current debate. First of all, some of the arguments brought up against EbM are similarly defaults of “classical medicine” as well, for instance its negligence of social aspects of medicine. Second, it is often maintained that EbM is just a tool to attain cost containment. This argument is false in two regards for neither is there any idea of cutting costs in the roots of EbM nor does EbM once practiced necessarily lead to less costs as there can be underuse as well as overuse. Third, both opponents and proponents of EbM come up with the same arguments against each other. Both maintain that the other way of practicing medicine does not allow for physicians’ autonomy and free judgment. Therefore, we are going to search for the different presuppositions on which these “reproaches” rely. In this way we can demonstrate that both opponents and proponents rely on different notions of autonomy and free judgment in their argument. Finally, we hope to show that some of the ethical criticism may be raised against classical medicine as well and that allocation in terms of costs is not primarily an aim of EbM.

Keywords

EbM ethics autonomy health economy allocation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashcroft, R.E. (2003) Constructing Empirical Bioethics: Foucauldian Reflections on the Empirical Turn in Bioethics Research. Health Care Analysis 11, 3–13.Google Scholar
  2. Biller-Andorno, N., Lie, R.K., and Ter Meulen, R. (2002) Evidence-Based Medicine as an Instrument for Rational Health Policy. Health Care Analysis 10, 261–275.Google Scholar
  3. Bosma, H., Peter, R., Siegrist, J. et al. (1998) Two alternative job stress models and the risk of coronary heart disease. Am J Publ Health 88, 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bottorf, J.L., Ratner, P.A., Johnson, J.L. et al. (1996) Uncertainties and Challenges: Communicating Risk in the Context of Familial Cancer. Vancouver, British Columbia, School of Nursing: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  5. Dickenson, D., and Vineis, P. (2002) Evidence-Based Medicine and Quality of Care. Health Care Analysis 10, 243–259.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, A., and Elwyn, G. (2002) Evidence-based Patient Choice. Inevitable or Impossible Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Forsman, B., Holm, S., Fleischhauer, K. et al. (1999) The Debate on Priorities in Health Care in Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Portugal. Lund: Lund University. Studies in Medical Ethics 6.Google Scholar
  8. Foucault, M. (1969) L’Archéologie du Savoir. Uebersetzt ins Deutsche von Koeppen, U. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1986.Google Scholar
  9. Glasziou, P., Vandenbroucke, J., and Chalmers, I. (2004) Assessing the Quality of Research. BMJ 328, 39–41.Google Scholar
  10. Gupta, M. (2003) A critical Appraisal of Evidence-Based Medicine: Some Ethical Considerations. J Eval Clin Pract 9, 111–121.Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, J. (1981) Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  12. Harbour, R., and Miller, J. (2001) for the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Grading Review Group. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ 323, 335–336.Google Scholar
  13. Hope, T. (1995) Evidence-based Medicine and Ethics. J Med Ethics 21, 259–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Illich, I. (1975) Nemesis der Medizin. Die Wirklichkeit der Medikalisierung des Lebens. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  15. Kienle, G.S., Karutz, M., Matthes, H. et al. (2003) Konkurs der ärztlichen Urteilskraft. Dtsch Aerztebl 100, C 1688–1672.Google Scholar
  16. Marmot, M.G., Bosma, H., Hemingway, H. et al. (1997) Contribution of job control and other risk factors to social variations in coronary heart disease incidence. Lancet 350, 235– 239.Google Scholar
  17. Molewijk, A.C., Stiggelbout, A.M., Otten, W. et al. (2003) Implicit Normativity in Evidence-Based Medicine: A Plea for Integrated Empirical Ethics Research. Health Care Analysis 11, 69– 92.Google Scholar
  18. Nord, E. (2002) Evidence-Based Medicine: Excessive Attraction to Efficiency and Certainty? Health Care Analysis 10, 299–307.Google Scholar
  19. Sackett, D.L. (1997) A Science for the Art of Consensus. J Nat Canc Inst 89, 1003–1005.Google Scholar
  20. Seidler, E. (2004) “Zappelphilipp” und ADHS: Von der Unart zur Krankheit. Dtsch Aerztebl 101, A239–A243.Google Scholar
  21. Wolf-Meier, K., Cooper, R.S., Banegas, J. R. et al. (2003) Hypertension Prevalence and Blood Pressure Levels in 6 European Countries, Canada, and the United States. JAMA 289, 2363–2369.Google Scholar
  22. Woodward, M., Oliphant, J., Lowe, G. et al. (2003) Contribution of contemporaneous risk factors to social inequality in coronary heart disease and all causes mortality. Prev Med 36, 561–568.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IGKE (Institut fuer Gesundheitsoekonomie und Klinische Epidemiologie = Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology)KölnGermany
  2. 2.IGKE (Institut fuer Gesundheitsoekonomie und Klinische Epidemiologie = Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology)KölnGermany

Personalised recommendations