Many ethical theorists believe that a given distribution of healthcare is morally justified only if (1) it is cost-effective and (2) it does not discriminate against older adults and disabled people. However, if (3) cost-effectiveness involves maximizing the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) added by a given unit of healthcare resource, or cost, it seems the pursuit of cost-effectiveness will inevitably discriminate against older adults and disabled patients. I show why this trilemma is harder to escape than some theorists think. (...) We cannot avoid it by using age- or disability-weighted QALY scores, for example. I then explain why there is no sense of “discrimination” on which discrimination isbothunjust, and thus something healthcare rationing must avoid,andsomething cost-effective healthcare rationing inevitably involves. I go on to argue that many of the reasons we have for not favoring rationing that maximizes QALYs outside the healthcare context apply in healthcare as well. Thus, claim (1) above is dubious. (shrink)

Some authors view the veil of ignorance as a preferred method for allocating resources because it imposes impartiality by stripping deliberators of knowledge of their personal identity. Using some prominent examples of such reasoning in the health care sector, I will argue for the following claims. First, choice behind a veil of ignorance often fails to provide clear guidance regarding resource allocation. Second, regardless of whether definite results could be derived from the veil, these results do not in themselves have (...) important moral standing. This is partly because the veil does not determine which features are morally relevant for a given distributive problem. Third, even when we have settled the question of what features to count, choice behind a veil of ignorance arguably fails to take persons seriously. Ultimately, we do not need the veil to solve distributive problems, and we have good reason to appeal to some other distributive model. (shrink)

Consider two cases. In Case 1, you must decide whether you save the life of a disabled person or you save the life of a person with no disability. In Case 2, you must decide whether you save the life of a disabled person who would remain disabled, or you save the life of another disabled person who, in contrast, would also be cured as a result of your intervention. It seems that most people agree that you should give equal (...) chances in Case 1: saving the life of the person with no disability would be unfair discrimination against the person with disability. Yet, in Case 2, it appears that many people believe that you are at least permitted to save straightaway the person who would have no disability after your intervention. There would be no unfair discrimination against the other person. I argue that these judgments present a puzzle for theories of resource allocation in normative ethics. The puzzle is straightforward for consequentialists: the two cases have the same outcomes, but the judgments are different. But the puzzle also presents a problem for nonconsequentialist views. After introducing the cases, I show this by reviewing a number of proposals for solving the puzzle. I argue that none of these proposals are successful. I then make my own proposal and conclude by spelling out its implications. (shrink)