ArticleBMC medical ethics2000
Why the fair innings argument is not persuasive.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Covid-19 and age discrimination: benefit maximization, fairness, and justified age-based rationing.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2023Article
- Healthcare resource allocation decisions and non-emergency treatments in the aftermath of Covid-19 pandemic. How should children with chronic illness feature in prioritisation processes?Wellcome open research · 2023Article
- Tailoring treatments to older people in intensive care. A way forward.Intensive care medicine · 2022Article
- Precision medicine and the principle of equal treatment: a conjoint analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- We Need to Talk About Rationing: The Need to Normalize Discussion About Healthcare Rationing in a Post COVID-19 Era.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Article
- COVID-19: legal implications for critical care.Anaesthesia · 2020Review
- Clinical decision making in cancer care: a review of current and future roles of patient age.BMC cancer · 2018Review
- One and done? Equality of opportunity and repeated access to scarce, indivisible medical resources.BMC medical ethics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The fair innings argument (FIA) is frequently put forward as a justification for denying elderly patients treatment when they are in competition with younger patients and resources are scarce. In this paper I will examine some arguments that are used to support the FIA. My conclusion will be that they do not stand up to scrutiny and therefore, the FIA should not be used to justify the denial of treatment to elderly patients, or to support rationing of health care by age. There are six issues arising out of the FIA which are to be addressed. First, the implication that there is such a thing as a fair share of life. Second, whether it makes sense to talk of a fair share of resources in the context of health care and the FIA. Third, that 'fairness' is usually only mentioned with regard to the length of a person's life, and not to any other aspect of it. Fourth, if it is sensible to discuss the merits of the FIA without taking account of the 'all other things being equal' argument. Fifth, the difference between what is unfair and what is unfortunate. Finally, that it is tragic if a young person dies, but only unfortunate if an elderly person does.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.