OpenLink Software

About: Proposals for allocating scarce lifesaving resources in the face of the covid-19 pandemic have aligned in some ways and conflicted in others. This paper attempts a kind of priority setting in addressing these conflicts. In the first part, we identify points on which we do not believe that reasonable people should differ—even if they do. These are (a) the inadequacy of traditional clinical ethics to address priority-setting in a pandemic; (b) the relevance of saving lives; (c) the flaws of first-come, first-served allocation; (d) the relevance of post-episode survival; (e) the difference between age and other life-expectancy expectancy; and (f) the need to avoid quality-of-life judgments. In the second part, we lay out some positions on which reasonable people can and do differ. These include (a) conflicts between maximizing benefits and priority to the worst off; (b) role-based priority; and (c) whether patients’ existing lifesaving resources should be subject to redistribution.

 Permalink

an Entity references as follows:

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE     Raw Data in: CXML | CSV | RDF ( N-Triples N3/Turtle JSON XML ) | OData ( Atom JSON ) | Microdata ( JSON HTML) | JSON-LD    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] This material is Open Knowledge Creative Commons License Valid XHTML + RDFa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software