A drunk driver, a sober pedestrian and the allocation of tragically scarce and indivisible emergency hospital treatment.
Le Grand describes a situation where a drunk driver, who has medical insurance, is the cause of an accident in which he and a sober pedestrian, who has no medical insurance, are both equally and seriously injured. At the private hospital to which they are both taken, there is available emergency treatment for one of them only. Who should receive it? The issues raised by Le Grand's example are shown to be more interesting, more complex and less clearcut than Le Grand suggests and implies. In particular, it is not the case that, unequivocally, the drunkenness of the driver establishes that the pedestrian rather than he should be treated nor that, unequivocally, the driver's possession of health insurance is morally irrelevant.
McLachlan
H V
HV
Department of Social Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University.
Swales
J K
JK
D000063:Accidents, Traffic; D000428:Alcohol Drinking; D001334:Automobile Driving; D004636:Emergency Service, Hospital / Q000592:standards*; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D019458:Insurance Coverage; D010344:Patient Advocacy; D018579:Patient Selection; D012935:Social Justice; D006113:United Kingdom; D014947:Wounds and Injuries / Q000628:therapy*