Allocating scarce life-saving resources: the proper role of age

Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (12):836-838 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced clinicians, policy-makers and the public to wrestle with stark choices about who should receive potentially life-saving interventions such as ventilators, ICU beds and dialysis machines if demand overwhelms capacity. Many allocation schemes face the question of whether to consider age. We offer two underdiscussed arguments for prioritising younger patients in allocation policies, which are grounded in prudence and fairness rather than purely in maximising benefits: prioritising one’s younger self for lifesaving treatments is prudent from an individual perspective, and prioritising younger patients works to narrow health disparities by giving priority to patients at risk of dying earlier in life, who are more likely to be subject to systemic disadvantage. We then identify some confusions in recent arguments against considering age.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Aggregation, allocating scarce resources, and the disabled.F. M. Kamm - 2009 - Social Philosophy and Policy 26 (1):148-197.
Complete lives in the balance.Samuel J. Kerstein & Greg Bognar - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (4):37 – 45.
Promoting racial equity in COVID-19 resource allocation.Lori Bruce & Ruth Tallman - 2021 - Journal of Medical Ethics 47 (4):208-212.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-03-23

Downloads
32 (#488,786)

6 months
13 (#184,769)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Govind Persad
University of Denver

Citations of this work

Discrimination against the dying.Philip Reed - 2024 - Journal of Medical Ethics 50 (2):108-114.
Healthcare Priorities: The “Young” and the “Old”.Ben Davies - 2023 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 32 (2):174-185.

Add more citations