Equity and COVID-19 treatment allocation: A questionable criterion
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a controversial criterion for allocating scarce medical treatment has been defended and incorporated into policy: the criterion of equity. Equity-included allocation schemes prioritize, to some degree, patients from marginalized or historically disadvantaged...
Authors: | ; |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2023
|
In: |
Bioethics
Year: 2023, Volume: 37, Issue: 3, Pages: 226-238 |
RelBib Classification: | NCC Social ethics NCH Medical ethics TK Recent history |
Further subjects: | B
allocating scarce resources
B Covid-19 B Equity B remedial justice |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
MARC
LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | 1836297041 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20230418173235.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 230216s2023 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/bioe.13132 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)1836297041 | ||
035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1836297041 | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
100 | 1 | |a Vogelstein, Eric |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Equity and COVID-19 treatment allocation: A questionable criterion |
264 | 1 | |c 2023 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
520 | |a Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a controversial criterion for allocating scarce medical treatment has been defended and incorporated into policy: the criterion of equity. Equity-included allocation schemes prioritize, to some degree, patients from marginalized or historically disadvantaged racial/ethnic groups, or patients with low socioeconomic status, for scarce treatment. The use of such criteria has been most prominently defended in two ways: (1) as reflecting a risk factor for severe COVID-19, and thus as a way of tracking medical need, and (2) as a form of remedial justice, viz. a way of redressing disparities in COVID outcomes that are caused by underlying unjust social conditions. Here, we delineate and critique those arguments. We argue that not only are such arguments unconvincing but also that there are compelling moral reasons to reject the sort of equity-included allocation schemes at issue. | ||
601 | |a COVID-19 | ||
650 | 4 | |a remedial justice | |
650 | 4 | |a Equity | |
650 | 4 | |a Covid-19 | |
650 | 4 | |a allocating scarce resources | |
652 | |a NCC:NCH:TK | ||
700 | 1 | |a Krishnamurthi, Guha |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Bioethics |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1987 |g 37(2023), 3, Seite 226-238 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)271596708 |w (DE-600)1480658-7 |w (DE-576)078707986 |x 1467-8519 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:37 |g year:2023 |g number:3 |g pages:226-238 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13132 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.13132 |x Verlag |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
935 | |a mteo | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
ELC | |a 1 | ||
ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
LOK | |0 001 4272714791 | ||
LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
LOK | |0 004 1836297041 | ||
LOK | |0 005 20230421111635 | ||
LOK | |0 008 230216||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2023-02-15#3D52BA830489F0E51A1BB9BE79535BC70DC32F63 | ||
LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a zota | ||
LOK | |0 936ln |0 1442053887 |a TK | ||
LOK | |0 936ln |0 1550736558 |a NCH | ||
LOK | |0 936ln |0 144205283X |a NCC | ||
ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||
REL | |a 1 | ||
SUB | |a REL |