Ethical musing about the allocation of scarce resources, renal transplants and commercialisation
Year: 2012
Type: article
Abstract: The distribution of scarce resources Rationing of scarce medical resources evokes profound responses from those who would access these resources and those who would distribute the resources. On the one hand, autonomous libertarians will argue that people with more financial resources have the right to purchase better health care than poor people, while group utilitarians will argue for a more equitable distribution of communal clinical resources. The difficulty arises in finding the common ground. In the discussions that follow, I have mostly tried to use examples regarding kidney donation by living donors. The living donors constitute three distinct groups: directed donation to a loved one or friend; non-directed donation to the general pool (this is the usual situation in cadaver donation); and directed donation to a stranger (as in the kidneys for sale above). Persad et al have suggested eight simple ethical principles that govern the allocation of resources. They grouped these into four categories: equality of opportunity (examples are lotteries and ‘first-come-firstserved’), prioritarianism (examples are ‘sickest first’ and ‘youngest first’), utilitarianism (examples are ‘saving the most lives’ and ‘saving the most life-years’), and rewarding social usefulness (examples are ‘instrumental value’ and ‘reciprocity’). Some of these principles are self-explanatory but others require further elucidation. Ethical musing about the allocation of scarce resources, renal transplants and commercialisation
Author: Keith D. Bolton
Institution: University of the Witwatersrand
Language: English
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W2264699655