Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39579288›Full record

ReviewMedicine, health care, and philosophy2025

The role of social justice in triage revisited: a threshold conception.

Felicitas Holzer, Nikola Biller-Andorno, Holger Baumann

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Felicitas HolzerInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zuerich, Winterthurerstrasse 30, Zuerich, 8006, Switzerland. felicitas.holzer@ibme.uzh.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3674-0241
Nikola Biller-AndornoInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zuerich, Winterthurerstrasse 30, Zuerich, 8006, Switzerland.
Holger BaumannInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zuerich, Winterthurerstrasse 30, Zuerich, 8006, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Saving as many lives as possible while ensuring equity for vulnerable groups through access to triage resources has been the dominant position since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, the exact relationship between the principles of social justice and efficiency remains a controversial and unresolved issue. In this paper, we aim to systematically distinguish between different models of this relationship and show that conceptualizing social justice as a 'moral side-constraint' or adopting a 'balancing approach' that attempt to reconcile social justice with efficiency inevitably lead to significant moral costs that require further justification. Based on this discussion, we propose a novel "threshold model" for trading-off moral costs. According to this model, the structural impact of triage must be considered in order to determine whether one opts for triage with the primary aim of efficiency or social justice. This contextualization further explains why, in some societies and circumstances, social justice can rightly be seen as the primary concern, while in other societies and circumstances, efficiency can be defended as the primary concern.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social JusticeTriageHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2BalancingCOVID-19EfficiencyEmergency triageLotteryMoral costsSocial justiceThreshold deontologyTriage

Identifiers

PMID39579288
PMCPMC11805789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.