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.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 216-221 |
Number of pages | 6 |
Journal | Journal of Medical Ethics |
Volume | 22 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 1996 |
Externally published | Yes |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Health(social science)
- Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
- Health Policy
- Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Keywords
- Health economics
- QALY
- Resource allocation