Fumagalli Roberto
King's College London, UK, London School of Economics, UK and University of Pennsylvania, USA.
Public Health Ethics. 2021 Nov 26;15(1):87-103. doi: 10.1093/phe/phab025. eCollection 2022 Apr.
In the recent literature across philosophy, medicine and public health policy, many influential arguments have been put forward to support the use of randomization procedures (RAND) to allocate scarce life-saving resources (SLSR). In this paper, I provide a systematic categorization and a critical evaluation of these arguments. I shall argue that those arguments justify using RAND to allocate SLSR in fewer cases than their proponents maintain and that the relevant decision-makers should typically allocate SLSR directly to the individuals with the strongest claims to these resources rather than use RAND to allocate such resources.
在近期哲学、医学和公共卫生政策领域的文献中,人们提出了许多有影响力的论点来支持使用随机化程序(RAND)分配稀缺的救生资源(SLSR)。在本文中,我对这些论点进行了系统的分类和批判性评估。我将论证,相较于其支持者所主张的情况,这些论点能证明使用RAND分配SLSR的情况更少,并且相关决策者通常应将SLSR直接分配给对这些资源需求最迫切的个体,而非使用RAND来分配此类资源。