Order:
  1. How to Allocate Scarce Health Resources Without Discriminating Against People with Disabilities.Tyler M. John, Joseph Millum & David Wasserman - 2017 - Economics and Philosophy 33 (2):161-186.
    One widely used method for allocating health care resources involves the use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to rank treatments in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. CEA has been criticized for discriminating against people with disabilities by valuing their lives less than those of non-disabled people. Avoiding discrimination seems to lead to the ’QALY trap’: we cannot value saving lives equally and still value raising quality of life. This paper reviews existing responses to the QALY trap and argues that all (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  2.  53
    Cutting to the Core: Exploring the Ethics of Contested Surgeries.Michael Benatar, Leslie Cannold, Dena Davis, Merle Spriggs, Julian Savulescu, Heather Draper, Neil Evans, Richard Hull, Stephen Wilkinson, David Wasserman, Donna Dickenson, Guy Widdershoven, Françoise Baylis, Stephen Coleman, Rosemarie Tong, Hilde Lindemann, David Neil & Alex John London - 2006 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    When the benefits of surgery do not outweigh the harms or where they do not clearly do so, surgical interventions become morally contested. Cutting to the Core examines a number of such surgeries, including infant male circumcision and cutting the genitals of female children, the separation of conjoined twins, surgical sex assignment of intersex children and the surgical re-assignment of transsexuals, limb and face transplantation, cosmetic surgery, and placebo surgery.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  3.  59
    Setting Priorities Fairly in Response to Covid-19: Identifying Overlapping Consensus and Reasonable Disagreement.David Wasserman, Govind Persad & Joseph Millum - 2020 - Journal of Law and the Biosciences 1:doi:10.1093/jlb/lsaa044.
    Proposals for allocating scarce lifesaving resources in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic have aligned in some ways and conflicted in others. This paper attempts a kind of priority setting in addressing these conflicts. In the first part, we identify points on which we do not believe that reasonable people should differ—even if they do. These are (i) the inadequacy of traditional clinical ethics to address priority-setting in a pandemic; (ii) the relevance of saving lives; (iii) the flaws of first-come, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark