Churchill College, University of Cambridge, Storey's Way, Cambridge, CB3 0DS, UK.
Med Health Care Philos. 2022 Dec;25(4):703-714. doi: 10.1007/s11019-022-10101-3. Epub 2022 Jul 7.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been overwhelming public health-care systems around the world. With demand exceeding the availability of medical resources in several regions, hospitals have been forced to invoke triage. To ensure that this difficult task proceeds in a fair and organised manner, governments scrambled experts to draft triage guidelines under enormous time pressure. Although there are similarities between the documents, they vary considerably in how much weight their respective authors place on the different criteria that they propose. Since most of the recommendations do not come with ethical justifications, analysing them requires that one traces back these criteria to their underlying theories of distributive justice. In the literature, COVID-19 triage has been portrayed as a value conflict solely between utilitarian and egalitarian elements. While these two accounts are indeed the main antipodes, I shall show that in fact all four classic theories of distributive justice are involved: utilitarianism, egalitarianism, libertarianism, and communitarianism. Detecting these in the documents and classifying the suggested criteria accordingly enables one to understand the balancing between the different approaches to distributive justice-which is crucial for both managing the current pandemic and in preparation for the next global health crisis.
新冠疫情对全球各地的公共医疗系统造成了巨大压力。在一些地区,医疗资源的供应远远不能满足需求,医院被迫启动分诊程序。为确保这项艰巨的任务能够公正、有序地进行,各国政府争分夺秒地召集专家在巨大的时间压力下起草分诊指南。尽管这些文件之间存在一些相似之处,但它们在各自作者对所提出的不同标准的重视程度上存在很大差异。由于大多数建议都没有伦理依据,因此分析这些建议需要追溯这些标准所依据的分配正义理论。在文献中,新冠疫情分诊被描绘为一种仅存在于功利主义和平均主义元素之间的价值冲突。虽然这两种观点确实是主要的对立面,但我将表明,事实上,所有四种经典的分配正义理论都涉及其中:功利主义、平均主义、自由意志主义和社群主义。在文件中发现这些理论,并相应地对建议的标准进行分类,可以帮助我们理解不同分配正义方法之间的平衡——这对于管理当前的大流行和为下一次全球卫生危机做好准备都至关重要。