Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of Science, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
J Med Ethics. 2018 Feb;44(2):109-113. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104250. Epub 2017 Oct 9.
Lifetime quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) prioritarianism has recently been defended as a reasonable specification of the prioritarian view that benefits to the worse off should be given priority in health-related priority setting. This paper argues against this view with reference to how it relies on implausible assumptions. By referring to lifetime QALY as the basis for judgments about who is worse off lifetime QALY prioritarianism relies on assumptions of strict additivity, atomism and intertemporal separability of sublifetime attributes. These assumptions entail that a health state at some period in time contributes with the same amount to how well off someone is regardless of intrapersonal and interpersonal distributions of health states. The paper argues that this is implausible and that prioritarians should take both intrapersonal and interpersonal distributions of goods into account when they establish who is worse off. They should therefore not accept that lifetime QALY is a reasonable ground for ascribing priority and reject lifetime QALY prioritarianism.
终身质量调整生命年(QALY)优先主义最近被辩护为一种合理的优先主义观点的具体说明,即应优先考虑处境较差者的利益,以确定健康相关的优先事项。本文针对这种观点的不可靠假设提出了反对意见。通过将终身 QALY 作为判断谁更糟糕的依据,终身 QALY 优先主义依赖于严格可加性、原子论和子生命属性的跨时间可分离性的假设。这些假设意味着,无论健康状况在个人内部和个人之间的分布如何,某个时间点的健康状况对一个人的幸福感的贡献是相同的。本文认为,这是不合理的,优先主义者在确定谁更糟糕时,应该考虑个人内部和个人之间的利益分配。因此,他们不应接受终身 QALY 是赋予优先权的合理依据,并应拒绝终身 QALY 优先主义。