Literature DB >> 11652092

QALYs, age and fairness.

Klemens Kappel, Peter Sandøe.   

Abstract

... We can therefore conclude that either we should go for equality; and in that case QALYs are unfair because they haven't got enough of an ageist bias. Or we should accept consequentialism; and in that case QALYs have just the right sort of ageist bias. No plausible case can, however, be made for the claim that QALYs have an unfair bias against old people. Other things being equal we ought when distributing resources essential for survival favour the young. This ethical claim can be supported both by reference to equality (the life-time-view) and by reference to consequentialism (and the premises that resources generally will be more useful when given to young people).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Analytical Approach; Health Care and Public Health; Philosophical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 11652092     DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1992.tb00208.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioethics        ISSN: 0269-9702            Impact factor:   1.898


  3 in total

Review 1.  Double jeopardy and the use of QALYs in health care allocation.

Authors:  P Singer; J McKie; H Kuhse; J Richardson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 2.  How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks.

Authors:  Alessandra Blonda; Yvonne Denier; Isabelle Huys; Steven Simoens
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 5.810

3.  Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Seda Erdem; Carl Thompson
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 2.655

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.