Who Should We Treat? Rights, Rationing, and Resources in the NHS

Who Should We Treat? considers one of the most pressing dilemmas incontemporary society. The NHS absorbs an ever-increasing share of nationalresources, yet difficult choices remain between deserving patients andalternative treatments. Why is this so and why do these issues provoke suchheated debate?How should the rights of elderly patients, or children, or those with terminalillnesses be balanced? Should the doctors' clinical commitment to individualsoverride the needs of society as a whole? Who should decide: the government,doctors, NHS managers, citizens, or the courts? Especially after the BristolInquiry, how should decision-makers be held accountable, and by whom? How shouldgovernance regulate the NHS? As patients become 'consumers' of medical care,what choice do they have as to how, where, and when they will be treated; andshould this include hospitals abroad?This completely revised new edition appraises the effects of a change ingovernment, the Bristol Inquiry, the Shipman enquiry, and rising discontent withNHS funding, all of which have prompted radical changes to the funding andmanagement of the NHS in recent years. During this time, the courts have alsobecome more willing to overturn decisions denying patients access to care. WhoShould We Treat? puts the rights and duties of patients and doctors into thecontext of the political and economic pressures on the NHS. It considers therelationships between doctors and patients, and the institutional influences ofNHS management and government.

Christopher Newdick is a Barrister and the Reader in Health Law at the University of Reading. He is also an honorary consultant to Reading Primary Care Trust, and a member of the Berkshire Priorities Committee.