Donor identification and consent for deceased organ donation: summary of NICE guidance.

Organ donation plays a major role in the management of patients with single organ failure of the kidneys, liver, pancreas, heart, or lung, or with combined organ failure of heart and lung (such as in cystic fibrosis) or of kidney and pancreas (such as in diabetes). A shortage of transplant organs has resulted in long waits for transplantation. Currently about 500 people in the United Kingdom die each year because of a shortage of donated organs,1 and at 31 March 2011 almost 7000 patients were waiting for a kidney transplant1 and would be having costly dialysis with serious morbidity and impact on quality of life. This shortage of organs is partly the result of relatively low numbers of road traffic deaths (lower than in many countries) but is also the result of inefficiencies in the donor identification and consent processes. This article summarises the most recent recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) on improving donor identification and consent rates for deceased organ donation.2

European Economic and Social Constitutionalism after the Treaty of Lisbon

European studies frequently regard the economic and social dimensions of EU integration as diametrically opposed, maintaining that this state of affairs is beyond change. This edited collection challenges this perceived wisdom, focusing on the post-Lisbon constitutional landscape. Taking the multi-layered polity that is Europe today as its central organising theme, it examines how the social and the economic might be reconciled under the Union's different forms of governance. The collection has a clear structure, opening with a theoretical appraisal of its theme, before considering three specific policy fields: migration policy and civic integration, company law and corporate social responsibility and the role of third sector providers in public healthcare. It concludes with three case studies in these fields, illustrating how the argument can be practically applied. Insightful and topical, with a unique interdisciplinary perspective, this is an important contribution to European Union law after the Lisbon Treaty

Rheumatologists' judgements about the efficacy of anti-TNF therapy in two neighbouring regions

Objectives: The requirement in Northern Ireland to prescribe biologic agents according to NICE/BSR guidelines and within a fixed budget has created a waiting list for treatment that has no parallel in the Republic of Ireland. The study investigated the bearing this situation may have on had on the consultants’ judgements in the respective areas.

Methods: 78 case vignettes created from the data on real patients with RA treated with biologics in the north and south of Ireland were appraised by 9 southern and 8 northern consultants who judged the clinical benefit and significance of the patients’ condition after a trial of therapy. Quantitative (Clinical Judgement Analysis) and Qualitative (Focus groups) techniques were used.

Results: Northern consultants perceived a slightly greater degree of clinical benefit after a trial of therapy than southern consultants. Judgment models of northern and southern consultants were broadly comparable. The latter tended to be more uniform in their judgments than the southern group. Focus group discussions with consultants largely validated the findings of the quantitative analysis but revealed how clinical judgment analysis might be misled by gaming strategies.

Conclusions: Despite the absence of overt rationing in the south of Ireland, as far as the judgment of therapeutic benefit from biologics was concerned, the clinical judgment policies of practitioners were very similar to those in the north. The adoption of NICE/BSR guidelines in the north may have improved the uniformity of clinical practice in Northern Ireland.

Organising EU non-discrimination law around the nodes of ‘race’ gender and disability?

EU non-discrimination law has seen a proliferation of discrimination grounds from 2000. Dis-crimination on grounds of gender (in the field of equal pay) and on grounds of nationality (generally within the scope of application of EU law) were the only prohibited forms of discrimination in EU law, until the Treaty of Amsterdam empowered the Community to legislate in order to combat discrimination on grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (Article 13 EC). Proliferation of non-discrimination grounds is also characteristic for international and national non-discrimination law. As such, proliferation of grounds results in an increase in potential cases of “multiple discrimination” and the danger of diluting the demands of equality law by ever more multiplication of grounds. The hierarchy of equality, which has been so widely criticised in EU law, is a signifier of the latter danger.
This chapter proposes to structure the confusing field of non-discrimination grounds by organising them around nodes of discrimination fields. It will first reflect different ways of establishing hierarchies between grounds. This will be followed by a recount of different (narrow and wide) reading of grounds. A comprehensive reading of the grounds gender, ‘race’ and disability as establishing overlapping fields of discrimination grounds will be mapped out, with some examples for practical uses.