Literature DB >> 8863146

Another peep behind the veil.

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


  1 in total

1.  Would Aristotle have played Russian roulette?

Authors:  J Harris
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 2.903

  1 in total
  1 in total

1.  QALYs, lotteries and veils: the story so far.

Authors:  T Hope
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 2.903

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.