Why the fair innings argument is not persuasive.
The fair innings argument (FIA) is frequently put forward as a justification for denying elderly patients treatment when they are in competition with younger patients and resources are scarce. In this paper I will examine some arguments that are used to support the FIA. My conclusion will be that they do not stand up to scrutiny and therefore, the FIA should not be used to justify the denial of treatment to elderly patients, or to support rationing of health care by age. There are six issues arising out of the FIA which are to be addressed. First, the implication that there is such a thing as a fair share of life. Second, whether it makes sense to talk of a fair share of resources in the context of health care and the FIA. Third, that 'fairness' is usually only mentioned with regard to the length of a person's life, and not to any other aspect of it. Fourth, if it is sensible to discuss the merits of the FIA without taking account of the 'all other things being equal' argument. Fifth, the difference between what is unfair and what is unfortunate. Finally, that it is tragic if a young person dies, but only unfortunate if an elderly person does.
School of Philosophy, University of Leeds, Leeds, England. rivlin@globalnet.co.uk
Michael M
MM
Rivlin
D000328:Adult; D000367:Age Factors; D000368:Aged; D003695:Delivery of Health Care / Q000941:ethics; D026689:Ethical Analysis; D015276:Health Care Rationing / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D018579:Patient Selection / Q000941:ethics*; D016079:Refusal to Treat / Q000941:ethics; D040841:Resource Allocation / Q000941:ethics; D012935:Social Justice