Justice and Surgical Innovation: The Case of Robotic Prostatectomy

Abstract

Surgical innovation promises improvements in healthcare, but it also raises ethical issues including risks of harm to patients, conflicts of interest and increased injustice in access to health care. In this article, we focus on risks of injustice, and use a case study of robotic prostatectomy to identify features of surgical innovation that risk introducing or exacerbating injustices. Interpreting justice as encompassing matters of both efficiency and equity, we first examine questions relating to government decisions about whether to publicly fund access to innovative treatments. Here the case of robotic prostatectomy exemplifies the difficulty of accommodating healthcare priorities such as improving the health of marginalized groups. It also illustrates challenges with estimating the likely long-term costs and benefits of a new intervention, the difficulty of comparing outcomes of an innovative treatment to those of established treatments, and the further complexity associated with patient and surgeon preferences. Once the decision has been made to fund a new procedure, separate issues of justice arise at the level of providing care to individual patients. Here, the case of robotic prostatectomy exemplifies how features of surgical innovation, such as surgeon learning curves and the need for an adequate volume of cases at a treatment centre, can exacerbate injustices associated with treatment cost and the logistics of travelling for treatment. Drawing on our analysis, we conclude by making a number of recommendations for the just introduction of surgical innovations.

Priority Setting from the Lens of Justice in Existing Health Care Industry of Pakistan

“…In addition Norman Daniels also supports Rawlsian principle that proposes the distribution of health care facilities on the basis of fair equality of opportunity [8]. Moreover Bilal has only head injury and has more chances of survival compared to Raza so we can assume that Bilal can live a full life so maximizing principle is also in favor of giving priority to him [9]. However, Raza was on medical insurance and has the legal right to get treatment but health resources should be accessible to all, and individuals should be treated equally contrary to their paying ability as supported by principle of egalitarian [7].…”

What Pacemakers Can Teach Us about the Ethics of Maintaining Artificial Organs

“…Furthermore, the provision of artificial organs and support and maintenance for them is more likely to be concentrated in large teaching hospitals in wealthy countries. These observations in turn have implications for patient access to these treatments …”

Implications of a new element in the early diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer for rural Australians

“…An important precaution should be considered, as with any new model of care for an extremely common disease, that the research is not overtaken by public interest or well‐intentioned drives by clinicians sure of the outcome before all the facts are available. Australia has a long history of such phenomena, such as the drive to subsidise the breast cancer drug Herceptin in 2001 despite the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommending against it on cost‐effectiveness grounds, 9 and the rapid uptake of robotic prostatectomy in Australia 10 . We see this as a risk in the use of PSMA PET in early prostate cancer diagnosis.…”