  We consider the problem of learning about and comparing the consequences of
dynamic treatment strategies on the basis of observational data. We formulate
this within a probabilistic decision-theoretic framework. Our approach is
compared with related work by Robins and others: in particular, we show how
Robins's 'G-computation' algorithm arises naturally from this
decision-theoretic perspective. Careful attention is paid to the mathematical
and substantive conditions required to justify the use of this formula. These
conditions revolve around a property we term stability, which relates the
probabilistic behaviours of observational and interventional regimes. We show
how an assumption of 'sequential randomization' (or 'no unmeasured
confounders'), or an alternative assumption of 'sequential irrelevance', can be
used to infer stability. Probabilistic influence diagrams are used to simplify
manipulations, and their power and limitations are discussed. We compare our
approach with alternative formulations based on causal DAGs or potential
response models. We aim to show that formulating the problem of assessing
dynamic treatment strategies as a problem of decision analysis brings clarity,
simplicity and generality.
