| Property | Value |
|---|
|
?:abstract
|
-
When the COVID-19 pandemic reached the United States in spring 2020, many states and hospitals announced crisis standards of care (CSC) plans that used age as a categorical exclusion criterion. Such age-choosing was quickly flagged as discriminatory, and so some states and hospitals shifted to embedding age as a tiebreaker deeper in their plans. Different rationales were given for using age as a tiebreaker: (1) that younger patients were more likely to survive than older patients, (2) that saving younger patients would save more life-years, (3) that younger patients deserved a chance to live through life\'s stages. We provide a critical analysis of these three rationales, noting the differences between them, and then questioning the ethical and legal justifications for such age-choosing.
|
|
is
?:annotates
of
|
|
|
?:creator
|
|
|
?:doi
|
|
|
?:doi
|
|
|
?:journal
|
-
The_Hastings_Center_report
|
|
?:license
|
|
|
?:pmid
|
|
|
?:pmid
|
|
|
?:publication_isRelatedTo_Disease
|
|
|
?:source
|
|
|
?:title
|
-
When Is Age Choosing Ageist Discrimination?
|
|
?:type
|
|
|
?:year
|
|
![[This page as RDF]](https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}