Description
Metadata
Settings
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:
Subject of Sentences In Document
Object of Sentences In Document
Explicit Coreferences
Implicit Coreferences
Graph IRI
Count
http://ns.inria.fr/covid19/graph/entityfishing
3
http://ns.inria.fr/covid19/graph/articles
3
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 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