Another peep behind the veil.
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.
McKie
J
J
Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Kuhse
H
H
Richardson
J
J
Singer
P
P
D001315:Australia; D028663:Ethical Theory; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000191:economics; D018579:Patient Selection; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D011897:Random Allocation; D040841:Resource Allocation; D026712:Value of Life; D028761:Withholding Treatment