Göttert Elena Ana Francesca
Institute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany
J Med Ethics. 2025 Jan 23;51(2):139-143. doi: 10.1136/jme-2023-109326.
This essay discusses the ethical challenges and dilemmas in allocating scarce medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, using the German legislative process as a starting point. It is guided by the right to non-discrimination of people with disability and generally contrasts utilitarian and rights-based principles of allocation. Three approaches that were suggested in the German discussion, are presented, the lottery principle, the first come first served principle and the probability to survive principle. Arguments in favour and against each principle are discussed. The focus is on the utilitarian probability to survive principle, which was adopted in German legislation in 2022, and its discriminatory potential against people with disability. The essay suggests ways to mitigate the concerns of discrimination related to the probability to survive principle. It concludes that resolving the triage dilemma requires a balanced approach between utilitarian and rights-based concerns, which promotes both maximising the number of patients surviving and the right not to be discriminated against and be treated equally. It calls for a further debate on how many ethical values such as equity, fairness and non-discrimination we are willing to sacrifice for a higher number of survivors and when we are willing to sacrifice survivors to secure ethical values.
本文以德国立法程序为切入点,探讨了新冠疫情期间在分配稀缺医疗资源方面所面临的伦理挑战与困境。它以残疾人不受歧视的权利为指导,总体上对比了功利主义和基于权利的分配原则。文中介绍了德国讨论中提出的三种方法,即抽签原则、先到先得原则和生存概率原则。讨论了支持和反对每种原则的论据。重点是2022年德国立法中采用的功利主义生存概率原则及其对残疾人的歧视可能性。本文提出了减轻与生存概率原则相关的歧视担忧的方法。结论是,解决分诊困境需要在功利主义和基于权利的考量之间采取平衡的方法,这既能促进使存活患者数量最大化,又能保障不受歧视和平等对待的权利。文章呼吁就我们愿意为更多幸存者牺牲多少诸如公平、公正和非歧视等伦理价值,以及何时愿意为确保伦理价值而牺牲幸存者展开进一步辩论。