COVID-19, Scarce Resources and Priority Ethics: Why Should Maximizers Be More Conservative?
ETHICS, MEDICINE, AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2021;
18:100698. [PMID:
36569744 PMCID:
PMC9765399 DOI:
10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100698]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2021] [Accepted: 06/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
Background
The principle of maximization, which roughly means that we should save more lives and more years of life, is usually taken for granted by the health community. This principle is even more forceful in crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, where we have scarce resources which can be allocated only to some patients. However, the standard consequentialist version of this principle can be challenging particularly when we have to reallocate a resource that has already been given to a patient.
Methodology
Engaging in thought experiments, conceptual analysis, providing counterexamples, and appealing to moral intuitions, we challenge the standard consequentialist version of the maximization principle and make a case for adopting an alternative deontological version.
Discussion
In certain cases, the standard consequentialist version of the maximization principle is shown to yield intuitively immoral results. The deontological version of this principle is preferable because it can retain the merits of the standard consequentialist version without falling prey to its problems.
Conclusion
Compared to the standard consequentialist version, the deontological version of the maximization principle can better guide the ethical decisions of the health community, even in cases where we face a scarcity of resources.
Collapse