Keßler Peer, Krumpal Ivar
Department Health and Prevention, Institute of Psychology, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Institute of Sociology, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.
Front Sociol. 2025 May 13;10:1570940. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2025.1570940. eCollection 2025.
Against the background of the COVID-19 pandemic that has shaken societies around the world, the debate about fairness of medical allocation decisions is gaining momentum. Studying a sample of a broad international public ( = 1,998), we investigate citizens' ethical preferences in the moral dilemma of triage decisions. First, we address the key problem of which of several contradictory ethical criteria and normative principles should be used to determine the fairness of outcomes in triage situations. Preferences about fair outcomes are inferred from observed allocation decisions in a conjoint experiment. Second, preferences in regard to fair procedures are measured via fairness ratings of a series of triage procedures. Third, we analyze the relationship between the observed allocation outcomes and the fairness ratings of procedures. Finally, we review the current expert discourse and reflect it with the citizens ethical preferences observed in our study.
在这场撼动全球社会的新冠疫情大流行背景下,关于医疗资源分配决策公平性的辩论愈演愈烈。通过对一个广泛的国际公众样本(=1998人)进行研究,我们调查了公民在分诊决策道德困境中的伦理偏好。首先,我们解决关键问题:在几种相互矛盾的伦理标准和规范性原则中,应该使用哪一种来确定分诊情况下结果的公平性。在一项联合实验中,通过观察到的分配决策来推断对公平结果的偏好。其次,通过对一系列分诊程序的公平性评级来衡量对公平程序的偏好。第三,我们分析观察到的分配结果与程序公平性评级之间的关系。最后,我们审视当前的专家论述,并将其与我们研究中观察到的公民伦理偏好进行对照。