Age change in healthcare settings: a reply to Lippert-Rasmussen and Petersen

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Lippert-Rasmussen and Petersen discuss my ‘Moral case for legal age change’ in their article ‘Age change, official age and fairness in health’. They argue that in important healthcare settings (such as distributing vital organs for dying patients), the state should treat people on the basis of their chronological age because chronological age is a better proxy for what matters from the point of view of justice than adjusted official age. While adjusted legal age should not be used in deciding who gets scarce vital organs, I remind the readers that using chronological age as a proxy is problematic as well. Using age as a proxy could give wrong results and it is better, if possible, for states to use the vital information directly than use age as a proxy.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
RSNACI
Revision history
Archival date: 2020-03-30
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2020-03-30

Total views
26 ( #47,816 of 50,290 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
26 ( #23,505 of 50,290 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.