Résumés
Abstract
This paper aims to provide a better understanding of the law circumscribing the social role of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and gain insight into the reasons challenging the inclusion of ethics into HTA. We focused on a debate at the core of the perceived role of regulatory law in health technology development, namely: Environment, Health and Safety Issues (EHSI) vs Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (ELSI) that arose in technology governance. Data collection was based on a literature review and a case study analysis. The former was founded on previous work. Three HTA agencies were selected for the latter using categories ranging from a greater to a lesser level of legal obligatory intensity. Our literature review revealed five different themes relating to the social role of HTA and a distinction between the role/use of “hard law” and “soft law” in regulatory law, thus providing an understanding of how agencies used law for handling ethics in HTA. Both approaches revealed that the debate, first observed in the EHSI/ELSI technology-governance and assessment, is reproduced in HTA. The main trend revealed by the literature review and the case study, is the presence of a pact between science and regulatory law. The social demand for integrating ELSI, and more precisely, ethical evaluation into HTA, is not the main preoccupation of the traditional legal frameworks governing HTA and remains to be considered primarily by alternative, soft law initiatives. The reported difficulties in integrating ethics into HTA demonstrate the need for rethinking legal governance in HTA.
Keywords:
- governance,
- social role,
- health technology assessment,
- ethics
Résumé
Nous voulons mieux comprendre les lois circonscrivant le rôle social de l’Évaluation des technologies en santé (ETS) et les raisons empêchant l’inclusion de l’éthique en ETS. Nous avons ciblé un débat qui est au coeur du rôle perçu du droit réglementaire dans le développement de technologies en santé : l’opposition entre les enjeux environnementaux, sécuritaires et sanitaires (EHSI) et les enjeux éthiques, légaux et sociaux (ELSI), issus de la gouvernance technologique. La collecte de données est basée sur une revue de la littérature issue de travaux antérieurs, et sur une analyse de cas où trois agences d’ETS ont été sélectionnées en utilisant différentes catégories d’obligation légale selon leur degré de force contraignante. La revue de littérature a révélé cinq thèmes relatifs au rôle social de l’ETS et une distinction entre le rôle/utilisation du droit dur et du droit souple dans le droit réglementaire, permettant ainsi de comprendre comment les agences ont utilisé le droit pour intégrer (ou non) l’éthique en ETS. Les deux approches ont démontré que le débat, EHSI/ELSI observé initialement dans la gouvernance et l’évaluation de technologies est reproduit en ETS. La principale tendance confirmée par ces analyses est la présence d’un pacte entre la science et le droit réglementaire. La demande sociale d’intégrer les ELSI, particulièrement l’évaluation éthique en ETS, n’est pas prise en compte par le droit réglementaire traditionnel régissant l’ETS et doit plutôt être considérée par le droit souple. Les difficultés d’intégration de l’éthique en ETS démontrent la nécessité de repenser la gouvernance juridique de l’ETS.
Mots-clés :
- gouvernance,
- rôle social,
- évaluation des technologies en santé,
- éthique
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- 1. Patenaude J, Legault G-A, Bernier L, Beauvais J, Béland J-P, Boissy P, et al. Framework for the analysis of nanotechnologies’ impacts and ethical acceptability: basis of an interdisciplinary approach to assessing novel technologies. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21(2):293–315.
- 2. Legault GA, Verchères C, Patenaude J. Support for the development of technological innovations: promoting responsible social uses. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24:529–49.
- 3. WHO. Health Technology Assessment. 2019.
- 4. International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. Results of the survey on Ethical Issues among INAHTA organizations [Internet]. 2003. Available from: http://www.inahta.org/hta-tools-resources/inahta-member-surveys
- 5. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Joint Action 2, Work Package 8: HTA Core Model, v.3. [Internet]. 2016. Available from: www.htacoremodel.info/BrowseModel.aspx
- 6. Assasi N, Schwartz L, Tarride JE, Campbell K, Goeree R. Methodological guidance documents for evaluation of ethical considerations in health technology assessment: a systematic review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014;14(2):203–20.
- 7. Assasi N, Schwartz L, Tarride JE, O’Reilly D, Goeree R. Barriers and facilitators influencing ethical evaluation in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(3):113–23.
- 8. Bombard Y, Abelson J, Simeonov D, Gauvin F-P. Eliciting ethical and social values in health technology assessment: A participatory approach. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73:135–44.
- 9. Daniels N, Porteny T, Urrutia J. Expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy. Int J Heal Policy Manag. 2016;5(1):1–3.
- 10. Refolo P, Sacchini D, Brereton L, Gerhardus A, Hofmann B, Lysdahl KB, et al. Why is it so difficult to integrate ethics in health technology assessment (HTA)? The epistemological viewpoint. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016;20(20):4202–8. Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=prem&AN=27831656
- 11. Oortwijn W, Reuzel R, Decker M. Introduction. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2(s 2-3):97–101.
- 12. Hofmann B, Cleemput I, Bond K, Krones T, Droste S, Sacchini D, et al. Revealing and acknowledging value judgments in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(6):579–86.
- 13. Jasanoff S. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva. 2003;41(3):223–44.
- 14. Jasanoff S. Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Mercer County, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 2005.
- 15. Scott D. Framing and responding to scientific uncertainties: biofuels and synthetic biology at the convention on biological diversity. Jurimetrics J. 2016;56:245–60.
- 16. Trubek DM, Cottrel MP, Nance M. “Soft law,” “hard law,” and European integration: toward a theory of hybridity. Univ Wisconsin Leg Stud Res Pap. 2005;1002:43 p.
- 17. Snyder F. Soft law and institutional practice in the European Community. In: Martin S, editor. The Construction of Europe. Dordrecht: Springer; 1994.
- 18. Trubek LG. New governance and soft law in health care reform. Indiana Health Law Rev. 2006;3(1):137.
- 19. Legault G-A, K-Bédard S, Béland J-P, Bellemare CA, Bernier L, Dagenais P, et al. Eliciting value-judgments in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2019; Submitted.
- 20. Knudsen GR. Where’s the beef? how science informs GMO regulation and litigation. Ida Law Rev. 2012;48:225–50.
- 21. Genome Canada. Introducing Canada’s GE3LS projects ... [Internet]. GE3LS. 2002. Available from: http://www.genomecanada.ca/medias/pdf/fr/GE3LS_automne2002.pdf
- 22. Patenaude J, Legault GA, Tapin D. Nano engineering: ethical issues and social governance. In: Dolez P, editor. Nano Engineering: Global Approaches to Health and Safety Issues. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2014. p. 305–37.
- 23. Patenaude J, Legault GA. A Proposal for an E3LS (ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social) approach to the regulation of nanomedicine. Bioética saude, Pesqui Educ Brazilia, Cons Fed Med Soc Bras Bioética. 2014;2(77):100.
- 24. Daniel CÉ, Legault GA, Bernier L. La régulation des nanotechnologies, le débat national français et le dialogue social : nanomonde, grandes attentes normatives? Lex Electron. 2015;20(1):93–123.
- 25. Bellemare CA, Dagenais P, Bédard SK, Béland JP, Bernier L, Daniel CÉ, et al. Ethics in health technology assessment: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care [Internet]. 2018;34(5):447–57. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266462318000508/type/journal_article
- 26. Thomas DR. A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data. Am J Eval. 2006;27(2):237–46. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1098214005283748
- 27. France. Conseil d’Etat. Etude annuelle 2013 du Conseil d’Etat - Le droit souple. Paris, France; 2013.
- 28. Ali-Khan SE, Black L, Palmour N, Hallett MT, Avard D. A systematic review of english language health technology assessments of gene expression profiling tests for breast cancer prognosis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(1–2):1–15.
- 29. Potter BK, Avard D, Graham ID, Entwistle VA, Caulfield TA, Chakraborty P, et al. Guidance for considering ethical, legal, and social issues in health technology assessment: Application to genetic screening. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Oct 1 [cited 2017 Jul 4];24(04):412–22. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18828935
- 30. Potter BK, Avard D, Entwistle V, Kennedy C, Chakraborty P, McGuire M, et al. Ethical, legal, and social issues in health technology assessment for prenatal/preconceptional and newborn screening: a workshop report. Public Health Genomics. 2009;12(1):4–10.
- 31. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(1):71–6.
- 32. Hanvoravongchai P. Health system and equity perspectives in health technology assessment. J Med Assoc Thai. 2008;91 Suppl 2.
- 33. Lysdahl KB, Oortwijn W, van der Wilt GJ, Refolo P, Sacchini D, Mozygemba K, et al. Ethical analysis in HTA of complex health interventions. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17(1):16. Available from: http://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-016-0099-z
- 34. Martin C, Williams-Jones B, de Ortúzar MG. Ethical Health Technology Assessment in Latin America: Lessons from Canada and Argentina. Acta Bioeth. 2011;17(2):225–36.
- 35. Sandman L, Heintz E. Assessment vs. appraisal of ethical aspects of health technology assessment: can the distinction be upheld? GMS Health Technol Assess. 2014;10:Doc05.
- 36. Burls A, Caron L, Cleret de Langavant G, Dondorp W, Harstall C, Pathak-Sen E, et al. Tackling ethical issues in health technology assessment: a proposed framework. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(3):230–7.
- 37. Hofmann BM. Why ethics should be part of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(4):423–9.
- 38. Hofmann B. On value-judgements and ethics in health technology assessment. Poiesis und Prax. 2005;3(4):277–95.
- 39. Rawlins MD. Evidence, values, and decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(2):233–8.
- 40. Reuzel RP, van der Wilt GJ, ten Have HA, de Vries Robbe PF. Reducing normative bias in health technology assessment: interactive evaluation and casuistry. Med Heal Care Philos. 1999;2(3):255–63.
- 41. Grunwald A. The normative basis of (health) technology assessment and the role of ethical expertise. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2(2–3):175–93.
- 42. Sacchini D, Refolo P, Virdis A, Casini M, Traisci E, Daloiso V, et al. Electronic Medical Diary (EMD): Ethical analysis in a HTA process. In: 5th Conference of the Italian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems, ItAIS 2008. Paris: Physica-Verlag; 2010. p. 313–20.
- 43. ten Have H. Ethical perspectives on health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(1):71–6. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2066/58518
- 44. Ashcroft R. Ethics and health technology assessment. Monash Bioeth Rev. 1999;18(2):15–24.
- 45. Saarni SI, Hofmann B, Lampe K, Luhmann D, Makela M, Velasco-Garrido M, et al. Ethical analysis to improve decision-making on health technologies. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86(8):617–23.
- 46. Saarni SI, Braunack-Mayer A, Hofmann B, van der Wilt GJ. Different methods for ethical analysis in health technology assessment: an empirical study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):305–12.
- 47. Duthie K, Bond K. Improving ethics analysis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):64–70.
- 48.. Reuzel R, Oortwijn W, Decker M, Clausen C, Gallo P, Grin J, et al. Ethics and HTA: some lessons and challenges for the future. Poiesis Prax. 2004;2(2–3):247–56.
- 49. Hofmann B, Oortwijn W, Bakke Lysdahl K, Refolo P, Sacchini D, van der Wilt GJ, et al. Integrating ethics in health technology assessment: many ways to Rome. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(3):131–7.
- 50. Abelson, J, Giacomini, M, Lehoux, P, Gauvin F. Bringing “the public” into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy. 2007;81(1):37–50.
- 51. Autti-Ramo I, Makela M. Ethical evaluation in health technology assessment reports: an eclectic approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):1–8.
- 52. Culyer A. HTA - algorithm or process? comment on “expanded HTA: enhancing fairness and legitimacy”. Int J Heal Policy Manag. 2016;5(8):501–5.
- 53. Daniels N, van der Wilt GJ. Health technology assessment, deliberative process, and ethically contested issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(1–2):10–5. Available from: http://www.journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0266462316000155
- 54. Gagnon MP, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Gauvin FP, Piron F, Rhainds M, et al. Involving patients in HTA activities at local level: a study protocol based on the collaboration between researchers and knowledge users. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(14):7pp.
- 55. Kleme J, Pohjanoksa-Mantyla M, Airaksinen M, Enlund H, Kastarinen H, Peura P, et al. Patient perspective in health technology assessment of pharmaceuticals in Finland. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(3):306–11.
- 56. McMillan J, Sheehan M, Austin D, Howell J. Ethics and opportunity costs: Have NICE grasped the ethics of priority setting? J Med Ethics. 2006;32(3):127–8.
- 57. Arellano LE, Willett JM, Borry P. International survey on attitudes toward ethics in health technology assessment: An exploratory study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(01):50–4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21262067
- 58. Facey KM. Health technology assessment. In: Facey K, Ploug Hansen H, Single A, editors. Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature Publishing; 2017. p. 3–16.
- 59. Braunack-Mayer AJ. Ethics and health technology assessment: handmaiden and/or critic? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(3):307–12.
- 60. Publications Québec. Act respecting the Institut national d’excellence en santé et en services sociaux [Internet]. 2018 p. I-13.03. Available from: http://www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/i-13.03
- 61. INESSS. Code d’éthique des experts externes et cadre d’application aux partenaires [Internet]. 2012. p. 11 pp. Available from: https://www.inesss.qc.ca/fileadmin/doc/INESSS/DocuAdmin/AccesInfo/5_0-cadre-application-ethique-experts-externes.pdf
- 62. INESSS. Code d’éthique et de déontologie applicable aux dirigeants nommés par l’Institut et aux employés [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 Jul 17]. p. 6 pp. Available from: https://www.inesss.qc.ca/fileadmin/doc/INESSS/Transparence/DAI/Documents_Decision-20150713.pdf
- 63. INESSS. Code d’éthique applicable aux collaborateurs externes de l’INESSS [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Jul 17]. p. 9 pp. Available from: https://www.inesss.qc.ca/fileadmin/doc/INESSS/DocuAdmin/Lois_Politiques/INESSS-Code-collaborateurs-externes.pdf
- 64. INESSS. Consultation des parties prenantes [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Jul 17]. p. 32 pp. Available from: http://www.inesss.qc.ca/fileadmin/doc/INESSS/DocuMetho/INESSS_Consultation_Parties_Prenantes.pdf
- 65. INESSS. Élaboration et adaptation des guides de pratiques [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jul 17]. p. 112 pp. Available from: http://www.inesss.qc.ca/fileadmin/doc/INESSS/Rapports/OrganisationsSoins/Elaboration_guides_pratique/INESSS_Elaboration_adaptation_guides_de_pratique.pdf
- 66. France. Légifrance: Code de la sécurité sociale [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jul 18]. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do;jsessionid=1CEBDA9CB6B038CFA5D99FB56EF1DF44.tplgfr24s_1?idSectionTA=LEGISCTA000006156027&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006073189&dateTexte=20180412
- 67. Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS). Charte de déontologie [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2018 Jul 18]. p. 19 pp. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-06/charte_deontologie_has.pdf
- 68. Haute Autorité de Santé HAS. Assessment of ethical aspects [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2018 Jul 18]. Available from: https://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-11/assessment_of_ethical_aspects.pdf
- 69. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE Charter 2017 [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Jul 18]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/media/default/about/who-we-are/nice_charter.pdf