当两个人仅年龄不同且你无法同时治疗两人时，你会治疗哪一个？
Which of two individuals do you treat when only their ages are different and you can't treat both?
作者信息
Lewis P A, Charny M
机构信息
Department of Medical Computing and Statistics, University of Wales College of Medicine.
出版信息
J Med Ethics. 1989 Mar;15(1):28-34. doi: 10.1136/jme.15.1.28.
Abstract
A relative value of life dependent on age has been produced from a survey of 721 randomly selected individuals together with other observations of professional practice. The results are presented in diagrammatic form. If two identical people, except for age, present for medical treatment for a life-threatening condition and only one can be treated then the diagram indicates what the choice should be.
摘要
通过对721名随机抽取的个体进行调查以及对专业实践的其他观察，得出了一个取决于年龄的生命相对价值。结果以图表形式呈现。如果有两个除年龄外完全相同的人，因危及生命的疾病前来就医，而只能治疗其中一人，那么该图表表明了应该做出的选择。
相似文献
1
Which of two individuals do you treat when only their ages are different and you can't treat both?当两个人仅年龄不同且你无法同时治疗两人时，你会治疗哪一个？
J Med Ethics. 1989 Mar;15(1):28-34. doi: 10.1136/jme.15.1.28.
2
Priorities in health care: reply to Lewis and Charny.医疗保健的优先事项：对刘易斯和查尔尼的回应。
J Med Ethics. 1989 Mar;15(1):33-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.15.1.33.
3
Unprincipled QALYs: a response to Cubbon.无原则的质量调整生命年：对卡本的回应
J Med Ethics. 1991 Dec;17(4):185-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.17.4.185.
4
The rationing debate. Rationing health care by age.配给制辩论。按年龄配给医疗保健服务。
BMJ. 1997 Mar 15;314(7083):820-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7083.820.
5
"Not clinically indicated": patients' interests or resource allocation?“无临床指征”：患者利益还是资源分配？
BMJ. 1993 Feb 6;306(6874):379-81. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6874.379.
6
Access to heart surgery for smokers. The NHS can't treat only saints.吸烟者接受心脏手术的机会。国民医疗服务体系不能只治疗无可挑剔的人。
BMJ. 1993 May 22;306(6889):1408-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6889.1408-d.
7
Quality of life measures in health care. III: Resource allocation.
BMJ. 1992 Nov 14;305(6863):1205-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6863.1205.
8
Does it matter who you are or what you gain? An experimental study of preferences for resource allocation.你是谁或你获得了什么重要吗？一项关于资源分配偏好的实验研究。
Health Econ. 2003 Apr;12(4):255-67. doi: 10.1002/hec.713.
9
Amniocentesis and informed consent.羊膜穿刺术与知情同意。
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988 Feb 20;296(6621):566-7.
10
QALYfying the value of life.量化生命的价值。
J Med Ethics. 1987 Sep;13(3):117-23. doi: 10.1136/jme.13.3.117.
引用本文的文献
1
The application of the QALY measure in the assessment of the effects of health interventions on an older population: a systematic scoping review.质量调整生命年（QALY）测量在评估健康干预措施对老年人群影响中的应用：一项系统的范围综述。
Arch Public Health. 2021 Nov 18;79(1):201. doi: 10.1186/s13690-021-00729-7.
2
Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey.道德推理是否会影响医疗保健资源分配优先级的公共价值观？一项基于人群的随机陈述偏好调查。
Health Policy. 2020 Jun;124(6):647-658. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.04.007. Epub 2020 May 13.
3
Accuracy of the Pediatric End-stage Liver Disease Score in Estimating Pretransplant Mortality Among Pediatric Liver Transplant Candidates.儿科终末期肝病评分在预测小儿肝移植候选者移植前死亡率中的准确性。
JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Nov 1;172(11):1070-1077. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.2541.
4
Who should receive treatment? An empirical enquiry into the relationship between societal views and preferences concerning healthcare priority setting.谁应该接受治疗？社会观点与医疗保健优先排序偏好之间关系的实证研究
PLoS One. 2018 Jun 27;13(6):e0198761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198761. eCollection 2018.
5
Prioritising health service innovation investments using public preferences: a discrete choice experiment.利用公众偏好确定卫生服务创新投资的优先次序：一项离散选择实验
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Aug 28;14:360. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-360.
6
Challenges in health state valuation in paediatric economic evaluation: are QALYs contraindicated?儿科经济评价中健康状态估值的挑战：QALYs 是否被禁止？
Pharmacoeconomics. 2011 Aug;29(8):641-52. doi: 10.2165/11591570-000000000-00000.
7
How do people value life?人们如何看待生命的价值？
Psychol Sci. 2010 Feb;21(2):163-7. doi: 10.1177/0956797609357707. Epub 2009 Dec 22.
8
Is the value of a life or life-year saved context specific? Further evidence from a discrete choice experiment.生命或挽救的生命年的价值是否具有情境特异性？来自离散选择实验的进一步证据。
Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2008 May 20;6:8. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-6-8.
9
The value of thinly spread QALYs.分散程度较低的质量调整生命年的价值。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(9):845-53. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200624090-00003.
10
Cervical cancer as a priority for prevention in different world regions: an evaluation using years of life lost.子宫颈癌作为不同世界区域预防的重点：基于寿命损失年数的评估
Int J Cancer. 2004 Apr 10;109(3):418-24. doi: 10.1002/ijc.11719.
本文引用的文献
1
QALYfying the value of life.量化生命的价值。
J Med Ethics. 1987 Sep;13(3):117-23. doi: 10.1136/jme.13.3.117.
Zotero 插件