Too old to save? COVID-19 and age-based allocation of lifesaving medical care
Adults aged 65 and over are disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and represent by far the largest share of severe disease and death. This paper critically examines ethical arguments for using implicit and explicit age criteria as a standard for allocating s...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2022
|
| In: |
Bioethics
Year: 2022, Volume: 36, Issue: 7, Pages: 802-808 |
| RelBib Classification: | NCC Social ethics NCH Medical ethics XA Law |
| Further subjects: | B
Justice
B Ethics B Covid-19 B Allocation B Older Adults |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | Adults aged 65 and over are disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and represent by far the largest share of severe disease and death. This paper critically examines ethical arguments for using implicit and explicit age criteria as a standard for allocating scarce lifesaving resources during the pandemic. Section 1 introduces the topic. Section 2 distinguishes standard from pandemic triage. Section 3 assesses ethical arguments for criteria that are implicitly age-based, including quality-adjusted life years, disability adjusted-life years, and total number of future life years. Section 4 examines ethical arguments for criteria that are more directly age-based, including fair innings, equality between old and young, and priority to the worse off. The paper concludes that neither implicit nor explicit age-based allocation withstands careful scrutiny. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13041 |