McKie J, Kuhse H, Richardson J, Singer P
Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
J Med Ethics. 1996 Aug;22(4):216-21. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.4.216.
Harris argues that if QALYs are used only 50% of the population will be eligible for survival, whereas if random methods of allocation are used 100% will be eligible. We argue that this involves an equivocation in the use of "eligible", and provides no support for the random method. There is no advantage in having a 100% chance of being "eligible" for survival behind a veil of ignorance if you still only have a 50% chance of survival once the veil is lifted. A 100% chance of a 50% chance is still only a 50% chance. We also argue that Harris provides no plausible way of dealing with the criticism that his random method of allocation may result in the squandering of resources.
哈里斯认为，如果采用质量调整生命年（QALYs），只有50%的人口有资格存活，而如果采用随机分配方法，100%的人口将有资格。我们认为这涉及到对“有资格”一词的使用存在含糊之处，并且没有为随机方法提供支持。在无知之幕背后有100%的机会“有资格”存活，但一旦无知之幕揭开，你仍然只有50%的存活机会，这并没有什么优势。100%的50%机会仍然只是50%的机会。我们还认为，哈里斯没有提供合理的方式来应对他的随机分配方法可能导致资源浪费的批评。
