| Literature DB >> 8863146 |
J McKie1, H Kuhse, J Richardson, P Singer.
Abstract
Harris argues that if QALYs are used only 50% of the population will be eligible for survival, whereas if random methods of allocation are used 100% will be eligible. We argue that this involves an equivocation in the use of "eligible", and provides no support for the random method. There is no advantage in having a 100% chance of being "eligible" for survival behind a veil of ignorance if you still only have a 50% chance of survival once the veil is lifted. A 100% chance of a 50% chance is still only a 50% chance. We also argue that Harris provides no plausible way of dealing with the criticism that his random method of allocation may result in the squandering of resources.Keywords: Analytical Approach; Health Care and Public Health; Philosophical Approach
Mesh:
Year: 1996 PMID: 8863146 PMCID: PMC1377000 DOI: 10.1136/jme.22.4.216
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Ethics ISSN: 0306-6800 Impact factor: 2.903