ArticleAging and disease2021
Age in the Time of COVID-19: An Ethical Analysis.
Article in Aging and disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lessons learned from social isolation in nursing homes during the COVID-19 epidemic-group interview with relatives with negative experiences.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Association between care complexity individual factors and older inpatients with COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in aging · 2025Article
- "I was afraid to go to the hospital": A qualitative analysis and ethical implications of the impacts of COVID-19 on the health and medical care of older adults in Ethiopia.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- Dignity as a Central Issue in Treating Patients with Dementia Associated with COVID-19 Infection.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Prioritizing geriatrics in medical education improves care for all.Medical education online · 2022Article
- Who gets the ventilator? A multicentre survey of intensivists' opinions of triage during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite using a myriad of methods to combat the spread of COVID-19, the healthcare systems (especially the intensive care units) have been overwhelmed, showing an outpaced capacity of available beds and ventilators. Choosing the right criteria to allocate the scarce ICU seems very challenging, being necessary a rapid, uncomplicated and universally accepted tool for patients' triage regarding access to lifesaving resources; one such criterion, which generates intense debates, is age. Under certain circumstances, it might seem appropriate to choose to treat a young over an old patient. The main advantage of this approach is the potential for long-term survival, implying an equal right to reach an advanced age. Many authors have given moral reasons to support it, mainly based on utilitarian ethics or on distributive justice. However, there are numerous counterarguments to this approach, which we will summarize in this article. We will show that age should never be used as a unique criterion for withholding/not initiating life-saving procedures, even in pandemics or cases in which healthcare resources are extremely scarce. This approach is based on fundamental Codes of Ethics, such as the WMA Code of Ethics or the Oath of Hippocrates and all physicians treating patients should obey them.
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.