Rationing and life-saving treatments: should identifiable patients have higher priority?

Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (3):179-185 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Health care systems across the world are unable to afford the best treatment for all patients in all situations. Choices have to be made. One key ethical issue that arises for health authorities is whether the principle of the “rule of rescue” should be adopted or rejected. According to this principle more funding should be available in order to save lives of identifiable, compared with unidentifiable, individuals. Six reasons for giving such priority to identifiable individuals are considered. All are rejected. It is concluded that the principle of the rule of rescue should not be used in determining the allocation of health resources

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,069

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

Should Every Human Being Get Health Care?Göran Collste - 1999 - Ethical Perspectives 6 (2):115-125.
On the elusiveness of higher-order risk attitudes.Jasper Debrabander - 2023 - Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (11):748-748.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
55 (#298,385)

6 months
4 (#863,607)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The normative significance of identifiability.Tomasz Żuradzki - 2019 - Ethics and Information Technology 21 (4):295-305.
The Problem with Rescue Medicine.N. S. Jecker - 2013 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38 (1):64-81.

View all 18 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The cost of refusing treatment and equality of outcome.J. Savulescu - 1998 - Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (4):231-236.
The present-aim theory: A submaximizing theory of reasons?Julian Savulescu - 1998 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76 (2):229 – 243.

Add more references