ArticleThe Hastings Center report2021
Life-Years & Rationing in the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Critical Analysis.
Article in The Hastings Center report, 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.
- Triage Procedures for Critical Care Resource Allocation During Scarcity.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Ethical Issues in Kidney Transplant and Donation During COVID-19 Pandemic.Seminars in nephrology · 2022Review
- Article
- Crisis Standards of Care Guidelines for the COVID-19 Pandemic: Fresno Resource Allocation Guide (FRAG).Cureus · 2021Article
- Life-Years & Rationing in the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Critical Analysis.The Hastings Center report · 2021Article
- Centering Social Justice for Covid-19 Resources and Research.The Hastings Center report · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
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.