Back to Search Start Over

Another peep behind the veil

Authors :
John McKie
Helga Kuhse
Peter Singer
Jeff Richardson
Source :
Journal of Medical Ethics. 22:216-221
Publication Year :
1996
Publisher :
BMJ, 1996.

Abstract

Harris argues that if QALYs are used only 50% of the population will be eligible for survival, whereas if random methods of allocation are used 100% will be eligible. We argue that this involves an equivocation in the use of "eligible", and provides no support for the random method. There is no advantage in having a 100% chance of being "eligible" for survival behind a veil of ignorance if you still only have a 50% chance of survival once the veil is lifted. A 100% chance of a 50% chance is still only a 50% chance. We also argue that Harris provides no plausible way of dealing with the criticism that his random method of allocation may result in the squandering of resources.

Details

ISSN :
03066800
Volume :
22
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Journal of Medical Ethics
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....5e03f564a181e7cfad22ec3e9c7c8b67
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.22.4.216