Literature DB >> 19103945

The fair innings argument and increasing life spans.

A Farrant1.   

Abstract

The fair innings argument maintains that for healthcare resources to be distributed fairly every person should receive sufficient healthcare to provide them with the opportunity to live in good health for a normal span of years. What constitutes a normal span of years is often defined as life expectancy at birth, but this criterion fails to provide adequate grounds for the equal distribution of healthcare across and between generations. A more suitable criterion for the normal life span is the idea that the human life span is biologically limited. Many current gerontological theories argue that the biological limit to human life spans is related to the ageing process. If technological advances in medicine can retard the ageing process by treating and preventing the diseases and disorders associated with it, human longevity will be limited only by the developments in and the successful application of medicine. In consequence, the fair innings argument will no longer be able to justify denying people healthcare resources because they have lived longer than the normal life span.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19103945     DOI: 10.1136/jme.2007.023762

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  7 in total

Review 1.  Ethical challenges with welfare technology: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  "Rather one more chemo than one less…": Oncologists and Oncology Nurses' Reasons for Aggressive Treatment of Young Adults with Advanced Cancer.

Authors:  Katsiaryna Laryionava; Pia Heußner; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Eva C Winkler
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-11-13

3.  On the spot ethical decision-making in CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear event) response: approaches to on the spot ethical decision-making for first responders to large-scale chemical incidents.

Authors:  Andrew P Rebera; Chaim Rafalowski
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Methods for Health Economic Evaluation of Vaccines and Immunization Decision Frameworks: A Consensus Framework from a European Vaccine Economics Community.

Authors:  Bernhard Ultsch; Oliver Damm; Philippe Beutels; Joke Bilcke; Bernd Brüggenjürgen; Andreas Gerber-Grote; Wolfgang Greiner; Germaine Hanquet; Raymond Hutubessy; Mark Jit; Mirjam Knol; Rüdiger von Kries; Alexander Kuhlmann; Daniel Levy-Bruhl; Matthias Perleth; Maarten Postma; Heini Salo; Uwe Siebert; Jürgen Wasem; Ole Wichmann
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.981

5.  A Shot at Inclusion: Reconsidering Categorical Exclusion of Hospice Patients from COVID Vaccine Allocation.

Authors:  Meaghann S Weaver; Cynthia M A Geppert; David J Alfandre
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2021-03-21       Impact factor: 3.612

6.  Covid-19 and age discrimination: benefit maximization, fairness, and justified age-based rationing.

Authors:  Andreas Albertsen
Journal:  Med Health Care Philos       Date:  2022-10-15

7.  Who Shall Not Be Treated: Public Attitudes on Setting Health Care Priorities by Person-Based Criteria in 28 Nations.

Authors:  Jana Rogge; Bernhard Kittel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.