Advertisement

Prioritization not Rationing in Cancer Care

  • Nikolaus KnoepfflerEmail author
  • Jürgen Zerth
  • Martin O’Malley
Chapter
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 213)

Abstract

Conditions of scarcity impact healthcare services for cancer patients. This is the unpleasant reality for nations, local governments, hospitals, and even individual doctors. This means that medical services judged by objective standards as potentially effective by medical professionals are limited because of financial or access scarcity. With this situation of scarcity as premise, one must raise the ethical question of how to deal with scarcity while respecting fundamental principles of human dignity and human rights. This chapter focuses on the German healthcare context where dignity and rights form the basis and framework for medical ethics. Accordingly, in Germany, rationing medical services for life-threatening diseases has been traditionally and appropriately criticized and prohibited. Granting a situation of scarcity, however, some prioritization becomes increasingly necessary. Thus, there is present need for careful ethical analysis of non-emergency regulatory prioritization principles and protocols. Above all, analysis and conclusions must preserve and foster society’s deepest moral commitments.

Keywords

Prioritization Rationing Human dignity Ethics Oncology Scarcity of resources Healthcare 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Jan Schildmann, Wilhelm Löhe Hochschule, Fürth, Germany, Eefje Barber, Fockbek, Germany

References

  1. Aggarwal A, Ginsburg O, Fojo T (2014) Cancer economics, policy and politics: what informs the debate? Perspectives from the EU, Canada and US. J Cancer Policy 2:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anassi E, Ndefo UA (2011) Sipuleucel-T (provenge) injection: the first immunotherapy agent (vaccine) for hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Pharm Ther 36:197–202Google Scholar
  3. Bundesärztekammer (German Medical Association) (2010) Pressemitteilung der Bundesärztekammer: Hoppe: “Wir brauchen einen Sozialpakt für die Zukunft”. DresdenGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C et al (2011) Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 364:2507–2516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cutler DM (2011) Where are the health care entrepreneurs? The failure of organizational innovation in health care. Innov Policy Econ 11:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dartmouth Atlas Project (2007) Supply-sensitive care: topic brief. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice Lebanon, New HamshireGoogle Scholar
  7. Deutscher Ethikrat (2011) Medical benefits and costs in healthcare: the normative role of their evaluation—opinion. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Diederich A, Du Bois G, Dörr D (2015) Eine qualitative Studie zur Priorisierung medizinischer Leistungen in der Onkologie: Präferenzen und Kriterien unterschiedlicher Stakeholdergruppen. In: Priorisierung in der Medizin FOR 655 Nr. 40/2015 Google Scholar
  9. Dietz A (2011) Gerechte Gesundheitsreform? Ressourcenvergabe in der Medizin aus ethischer Perspektive. Campus, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis R, Fernandez J (2013) Risk selection, risk adjustment and choice: concepts and lessons from the Americas. Int J Environ Res Public Health 10:5299–5332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Enthoven AC (1993) The history and principles of managed competition. Health Aff 12:24–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. German Medicines Commission (Juni 2012) zitiert nach. http://www.akdae.de/Arzneimitteltherapie/NA/Archiv/2012034-Zelboraf.pdf (zuletzt eingesehen 26 Feb 2015)
  13. Gigerenzer G (2013) Risiko: Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft. C. Bertelsmann Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  14. Greiner W, Knittel M (2011) Economic potentials of indvidualized medicine. PharmacoEconomics Ger Res Art 9:45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guttmacher AE, Collins FS, Drazen JM (2004) Genomic medicine. Johns Hopknis University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatz MHM, Schremser K, Rogowski WH (2014) Is individualized medicine more cost-effective? A systematic review. PharmacoEconomics 32:443–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim H, Rajagopalan MS, Beriwal S et al (2015) Cost-effectiveness analysis of single fraction of stereotactic body radiation therapy compared with single fraction of external beam radiation therapy for palliation of vertebral bone metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 91:556–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knoepffler N (2008) Justice for cancer therapy. In: O’Malley M, Klemm A (eds) Cancer research is a social endeavor. Utz Verlag, Munich, pp 67–80Google Scholar
  19. Knoepffler N (2004) Menschenwürde in der Bioethik. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knoepffler N (2015) Priorisierung oder Rationierung in der Onkologie. Der Onkologe 2015(8):717–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knoepffler N, Daumann F (2017) Gerechtigkeit im Gesundheitswesen. Alber Verlag, FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  22. Larkin J, Ascierto PA, Dréno B et al (2014) Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 371:1867–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oberender P, Zerth J (2014) Selektivverträge als „ökonomischer Kern“ der Solidarischen Wettbewerbsordnung, in: Cassel/Jacobs/Vauth/Zerth (Hrsg.): Solidarische Wettbew-erbsordnung. Genese, Umsetzung und Perspektiven einer Konzeption zur wettbewerblichen Gestaltung der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung, Heidelberg, S. 173–198. In: Cassel D, Buchner F, Jacobs K (eds) Solidarische Wettbewerbsordnung: Genese, Umsetzung und Perspektiven einer Konzeption zur wettbewerblichen Gestaltung der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung. Medhochzwei, Heidelberg, pp 173–198Google Scholar
  24. Oberender P, Zerth J, Engelmann A (2016) Wachstumsmarkt Gesundheit. UVK, MunichGoogle Scholar
  25. Olsen JA (2011) Concepts of equity and fairness in health and health care. In: Glied S, Smith PC (eds) Oxford handbook of health economics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 814–836Google Scholar
  26. O’Malley MJ (2013) Value ethics: a meta-ethical framework for emerging sciences in pluralistic contexts. In: Baumbach-Knopf C, Achatz J, Knoepffler N (eds) Facettn der Ethik. Königshausen Neumann, Würzburg, pp 71–90Google Scholar
  27. Perry PA, Hotze T (2011) Oregon’s experiment with prioritizing public health care services. AMA J Ethics 13:241–247Google Scholar
  28. Schüller A (2002) Sozialansprüche, individuelle Eigentumsbildung und Marktsystem. ORDO 53:59–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. SOU (1995) Priorities in health care. Ethics, economy, implementation: final report by the Swedish parliamentary priorities commission (Vårdens svåra val). In: Socialdepartementet (ed), StockholmGoogle Scholar
  30. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A et al (2010) Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 363:733–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Weissberger D (2008) Rationierung in der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung Deutschlands. Verlag P.C.O, BayreuthGoogle Scholar
  32. Zentrale Ethikkommission (ZEKO) bei der Bundesärztekammer (2007) Priorisierung medizinischer Leistungen im System der Gesetzlichen Krankenkassen (GKV): Beratungsergebnis (Stand 19 Aug 2017). BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. Zerth J (2015) Ökonomische Rahmenbedingungen und medizinische Indikation (Hrsg.):, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, S. 125–140. In: Dörries A, Lipp V (eds) Medizinische Indikation: Ärztliche, ethische und rechtlicher Perspektiven. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, pp 125–140Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolaus Knoepffler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jürgen Zerth
    • 2
  • Martin O’Malley
    • 1
  1. 1.Friedrich Schiller UniversityJenaGermany
  2. 2.Wilhelm Löhe HochschuleFürthGermany

Personalised recommendations