| Summary: | The Citizens Council provides NICE with a public perspective on overarching moral and ethical issues that NICE should take into account when producing guidance. Made up of members of the public, broadly representative of the adult UK population, the Council operates through a "citizens' jury" style meeting, to explore and respond to a question set by NICE. At this three day meeting of the Council, members were asked to consider the issue of health inequalities from NICE's perspective. Specifically, they were asked to decide which of two broad strategies would be more appropriate for NICE to follow: 1. whether to issue guidance that concentrates resources on improving the health of the whole population (which may mean improvement for all groups) even if there is a risk of widening the gap between the socio-economic groups; 2. or whether or to issue guidance that concentrates resources on trying to improve the health of the most disadvantaged members of our society, thus narrowing the gap between the least and most disadvantaged, even if this has only a modest impact on the health of the population as a whole. The Council was also asked to consider for each of these strategies, whether there are factors that should merit special consideration. The Council was unable to reach unanimous agreement. In the end 10 of us backed Option 1, while 15 of us favoured Option 2. One of us felt unable to express a firm preference. As will appear, neither preference was unqualified. Together with evidence from tracking questionnaires, this finding indicates that, despite our many and varied reservations, a majority of the Citizens Council would look with sympathy on NICE strategies intended not only to improve public health for all, but to do so in a way that offers particular benefit to the most disadvantaged
|
|---|