BMC Medical Ethics 13 (1):11 (2012)
AbstractBackground: Existing ethical guidelines recommend that, all else equal, past receipt of a medical resource (e.g. a scarce organ) should not be considered in current allocation decisions (e.g. a repeat transplantation).DiscussionOne stated reason for this ethical consensus is that formal theories of ethics and justice do not persuasively accept or reject repeated access to the same medical resources. Another is that restricting attention to past receipt of a particular medical resource seems arbitrary: why couldn't one just as well, it is argued, consider receipt of other goods such as income or education? In consequence, simple allocation by lottery or first-come-first-served without consideration of any past receipt is thought to best afford equal opportunity, conditional on equal medical need. There are three issues with this view that need to be addressed. First, public views and patient preferences are less ambiguous than formal theories of ethics. Empirical work shows strong preferences for fairness in health care that have not been taken into account: repeated accessto resources has been perceived as unfair. Second, while difficult to consider receipt of many other prior resources including non-medical resources, this should not be used a motive for ignoring the receipt of any and all goods including the focal resource in question. Third, when all claimants to a scarce resource are equally deserving, then use of random allocation seems warranted. However, the converse is not true: mere use of a randomizer does not by itself make the merits of all claimants equal.SummaryMy conclusion is that not ignoring prior receipt of the same medical resource, and prioritizing those who have not previously had access to the medical resource in question, may be perceived as fairer and more equitable by society
Similar books and articles
The Distribution of Life-Saving Medical Resources: Equality, Life Expectancy, and Choice Behind the Veil.Mark S. Stein - 2002 - Social Philosophy and Policy 19 (2):212-245.
Equality of Opportunity and Complex Equality: The Special Place of Schooling. [REVIEW]Harry Brighouse - 2007 - Res Publica 13 (2):147-158.
Priorities in the Allocation of Scarce Resources.K. M. Boyd & B. T. Potter - 1986 - Journal of Medical Ethics 12 (4):197-200.
Allocating Scarce Resources in a Publicly Funded Health System: Ethical Considerations of a Canadian Managed Care Proposal.T. Reay - 1999 - Nursing Ethics 6 (3):240-249.
Distributive Justice in Competitive Access to Intercollegiate Athletic Teams Segregated by Sex.Louis M. Guenin - 1997 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 16 (4):347-372.
Pursuing Equal Opportunities: The Theory and Practice of Egalitarian Justice.Lesley A. Jacobs - 2003 - Cambridge University Press.
Equality of Opportunity Globalized?Darrel Moellendorf - 2006 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 19 (2).
A Moral Allocation of Scarce Lifesaving Medical Resources.John F. Kilner - 1981 - Journal of Religious Ethics 9 (2):245 - 285.
Hydration and Nutrition: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Obligations.Mark Siegler - forthcoming - Scarce Medical Resources and Justice.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
No citations found.
References found in this work
Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions.Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer & Ezekiel J. Emanuel - 2009 - The Lancet 373 (9661):423--431.
The Right to a Decent Minimum of Health Care.Allen E. Buchanan - 1984 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (1):55-78.
Justice and Procedure: How Does “Accountability for Reasonableness” Result in Fair Limit-Setting Decisions?Annette Rid - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (1):12-16.