The distribution of life-saving medical resources: equality, life expectancy, and choice behind the veil

The Equitable Benefit Approach to guide the assessment of medical and psychosocial factors in liver transplant candidacy

Lack of available organs poses a significant challenge in meeting the needs of patients with life-threatening liver disease who could benefit from liver transplantation (LT). Psychosocial vulnerability markers have been linked to post-transplant outcomes, raising questions about their use in patient selection. However, their incorporation into selection criteria raises concerns about health equity and potential discrimination. As a result, there is a pressing need to refine fair allocation systems that consider both clinical and psychosocial factors to ensure equitable access and optimize post-transplant outcomes. The Equitable Benefit Approach (EBA) proposed in this paper by the multidisciplinary group of clinical experts in LT from the Italian Society for the Study of the Liver seeks to address these concerns. It presents four procedural principles, the two allocative principles usually applied in transplantation (urgency and utility) and introduces a new one, the principle of health equity. The EBA aims to prioritize patients with the highest transplant benefit while addressing health inequalities. It emphasizes evidence-based decision-making and standardized assessment tools to reliably evaluate psychosocial risk factors. Implementing the EBA involves a multi-step process, including stakeholder engagement, prospective studies to validate its efficacy, development of institutional policies and algorithms, and ongoing monitoring and revision. By following these steps, health care providers can ensure that LT allocation decisions are transparent and responsive to evolving clinical and social contexts. Ultimately, the EBA should offer a comprehensive framework for fair patient selection in LT, considering both biomedical and psychosocial aspects.

We Should Not Use Randomization Procedures to Allocate Scarce Life-Saving Resources

In the recent literature across philosophy, medicine and public health policy, many influential arguments have been put forward to support the use of randomization procedures (RAND) to allocate scarce life-saving resources (SLSR). In this paper, I provide a systematic categorization and a critical evaluation of these arguments. I shall argue that those arguments justify using RAND to allocate SLSR in fewer cases than their proponents maintain and that the relevant decision-makers should typically allocate SLSR directly to the individuals with the strongest claims to these resources rather than use RAND to allocate such resources.

Life-Years & Rationing in the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Critical Analysis

Prominent bioethicists have promoted the preservation of life-years as a rationing strategy in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Yet the philosophical justification for maximizing life-years is underdeveloped and has a complex history that is not reflected in recent literature. In this article, we offer a critical investigation of the use of life-years, arguing that evidence of public support for the life-years approach is thin and that organ transplantation protocols (heavily cited in pandemic-response protocols) do not provide a precedent for seeking to save the most life-years. We point out that many state emergency-response plans ultimately rejected or severely attenuated the meaning of saving the most life-years, and we argue that philosophical arguments in support of rationing by life-years are remarkably wanting. We conclude by offering a fair alternative that adheres to the standard duties of beneficence, respect for persons, and justice.

Should age matter in COVID-19 triage? A deliberative study

The COVID-19 pandemic put a large burden on many healthcare systems, causing fears about resource scarcity and triage. Several COVID-19 guidelines included age as an explicit factor and practices of both triage and 'anticipatory triage' likely limited access to hospital care for elderly patients, especially those in care homes. To ensure the legitimacy of triage guidelines, which affect the public, it is important to engage the public's moral intuitions. Our study aimed to explore general public views in the UK on the role of age, and related factors like frailty and quality of life, in triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. We held online deliberative workshops with members of the general public (n=22). Participants were guided through a deliberative process to maximise eliciting informed and considered preferences. Participants generally accepted the need for triage but strongly rejected 'fair innings' and 'life projects' principles as justifications for age-based allocation. They were also wary of the 'maximise life-years' principle, preferring to maximise the number of lives rather than life years saved. Although they did not arrive at a unified recommendation of one principle, a concern for three core principles and values eventually emerged: equality, efficiency and vulnerability. While these remain difficult to fully respect at once, they captured a considered, multifaceted consensus: utilitarian considerations of efficiency should be tempered with a concern for equality and vulnerability. This 'triad' of ethical principles may be a useful structure to guide ethical deliberation as societies negotiate the conflicting ethical demands of triage.

We Need to Talk About Rationing: The Need to Normalize Discussion About Healthcare Rationing in a Post COVID-19 Era

The global COVID-19 pandemic has brought the issue of rationing finite healthcare resources to the fore. There has been much academic debate, media attention, and conversation in the homes of everyday individuals about the allocation of medical resources, diagnostic testing kits, ventilators, and personal protective equipment. Yet decisions to prioritize treatment for some individuals over others occur implicitly and explicitly in everyday practices. The pandemic has propelled the socially taboo and unavoidably prickly issue of healthcare rationing into the public spotlight-and as such, healthcare rationing demands ongoing public attention and transparent discussion. This article concludes that in the aftermath of COVID-19, policymakers should work towards normalizing rationing discussions by engaging in transparent and honest debate in the wider community and public domain. Further, injecting greater openness and objectivity into rationing decisions might go some way towards dismantling the societal taboo surrounding rationing in healthcare.

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions

Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system-the complete lives system-which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.