澳大利亚和新西兰肺癌药物可及性的药理学和伦理学比较。

IF 3.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1136/jme-2023-109758
Elizabeth Fenton, John Ashton
{"title":"澳大利亚和新西兰肺癌药物可及性的药理学和伦理学比较。","authors":"Elizabeth Fenton, John Ashton","doi":"10.1136/jme-2023-109758","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Gaps in funded cancer medicines between New Zealand and Australia can have significant implications for patients and their families. Pharmac, the New Zealand pharmaceutical funding agency, has been criticised for not funding enough cancer medicines, and a 2022 review identified ethical concerns about its utilitarian focus on efficiency. However, as the costs of new cancer medicines rise along with public and political pressure to fund them, questions about value for money remain critical for health systems worldwide. In this paper, we compare funding for cancer medicines in New Zealand and Australia, specifically medicines for non-small cell lung cancer. We argue that the ethical imperatives on funding agencies to get value for money and provide medicines for patients with cancer underscore the importance of transparent decision-making processes, including identifying and explaining intercountry differences in funded medicines.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmacological and ethical comparisons of lung cancer medicine accessibility in Australia and New Zealand.\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Fenton, John Ashton\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jme-2023-109758\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Gaps in funded cancer medicines between New Zealand and Australia can have significant implications for patients and their families. Pharmac, the New Zealand pharmaceutical funding agency, has been criticised for not funding enough cancer medicines, and a 2022 review identified ethical concerns about its utilitarian focus on efficiency. However, as the costs of new cancer medicines rise along with public and political pressure to fund them, questions about value for money remain critical for health systems worldwide. In this paper, we compare funding for cancer medicines in New Zealand and Australia, specifically medicines for non-small cell lung cancer. We argue that the ethical imperatives on funding agencies to get value for money and provide medicines for patients with cancer underscore the importance of transparent decision-making processes, including identifying and explaining intercountry differences in funded medicines.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109758\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109758","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

新西兰和澳大利亚在资助癌症药物方面的差距会对患者及其家庭产生重大影响。新西兰医药资助机构 Pharmac 因资助的抗癌药物数量不足而饱受批评,2022 年的一项审查也指出了其注重效率的功利主义伦理问题。然而,随着癌症新药成本的增加,以及公众和政治界要求资助癌症新药的压力,有关资金效益的问题对全球医疗系统来说仍然至关重要。在本文中,我们比较了新西兰和澳大利亚对癌症药物(尤其是治疗非小细胞肺癌的药物)的资助情况。我们认为,资助机构必须履行道德义务,使资金物有所值,并为癌症患者提供药物,这就强调了决策过程透明的重要性,包括识别和解释受资助药物的国家间差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pharmacological and ethical comparisons of lung cancer medicine accessibility in Australia and New Zealand.

Gaps in funded cancer medicines between New Zealand and Australia can have significant implications for patients and their families. Pharmac, the New Zealand pharmaceutical funding agency, has been criticised for not funding enough cancer medicines, and a 2022 review identified ethical concerns about its utilitarian focus on efficiency. However, as the costs of new cancer medicines rise along with public and political pressure to fund them, questions about value for money remain critical for health systems worldwide. In this paper, we compare funding for cancer medicines in New Zealand and Australia, specifically medicines for non-small cell lung cancer. We argue that the ethical imperatives on funding agencies to get value for money and provide medicines for patients with cancer underscore the importance of transparent decision-making processes, including identifying and explaining intercountry differences in funded medicines.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
期刊最新文献
Strengthening harm-theoretic pro-life views. Wish to die trying to live: unwise or incapacitous? The case of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust versus 'ST'. Pregnant women are often not listened to, but pathologising pregnancy isn't the solution. How ectogestation can impact the gestational versus moral parenthood debate. If not a right to children because of gestation, then not a duty towards them either.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1