Tinkering with the survival lottery during a public health crisis

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    A well-known thought experiment has us ponder a lottery system that selects one person as the source of transplantable organs for two others. The organs are forcibly harvested and the "donor" dies, whereas the other two patients live. The Survival Lottery is supposed to get at the distinction between killing and letting die, but it is also a challenge to beliefs about moral duties: what are my obligations if my life could be used to save yours and another person's as well? A less extreme version of this thought experiment might have us imagining that officials of the public healthcare system would devise a similar lottery in the aftermath of a large-scale medical emergency. We could imagine that a natural disaster or an attack using biological weapons, for example, has so diminished the ability to provide public health care that in some communities, officials might consider implementing a lottery. To avoid the concerns about outright killing of selectees, officials might offer a wide range of participation in medical practice and research, not just organ allocation. Officials could ensure that no significant risks are involved, and selectees could in various ways be compensated. Would it be possible to ethically justify this "Healthcare Lottery" on the grounds that it was a temporary, yet necessary, infringement on autonomy?.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)181-194
    Number of pages14
    JournalJournal of Medicine and Philosophy
    Volume34
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 1 Apr 2009

    Fingerprint

    Public Health
    Delivery of Health Care
    Survival
    Moral Obligations
    Biological Warfare Agents
    Aptitude
    Disasters
    Biomedical Research
    Emergencies
    Tissue Donors
    Lottery
    Organs
    Thought Experiments
    Person
    Healthcare
    Killing

    Keywords

    • Emergency response
    • Lottery
    • Public health
    • Rationing
    • Utilitarianism

    Cite this

    @article{f4a1760473744d0f94d3e5e8b25a99f9,
    title = "Tinkering with the survival lottery during a public health crisis",
    abstract = "A well-known thought experiment has us ponder a lottery system that selects one person as the source of transplantable organs for two others. The organs are forcibly harvested and the {"}donor{"} dies, whereas the other two patients live. The Survival Lottery is supposed to get at the distinction between killing and letting die, but it is also a challenge to beliefs about moral duties: what are my obligations if my life could be used to save yours and another person's as well? A less extreme version of this thought experiment might have us imagining that officials of the public healthcare system would devise a similar lottery in the aftermath of a large-scale medical emergency. We could imagine that a natural disaster or an attack using biological weapons, for example, has so diminished the ability to provide public health care that in some communities, officials might consider implementing a lottery. To avoid the concerns about outright killing of selectees, officials might offer a wide range of participation in medical practice and research, not just organ allocation. Officials could ensure that no significant risks are involved, and selectees could in various ways be compensated. Would it be possible to ethically justify this {"}Healthcare Lottery{"} on the grounds that it was a temporary, yet necessary, infringement on autonomy?.",
    keywords = "Emergency response, Lottery, Public health, Rationing, Utilitarianism",
    author = "Chris Herrera",
    year = "2009",
    month = "4",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1093/jmp/jhp017",
    language = "English",
    volume = "34",
    pages = "181--194",
    journal = "Journal of Medicine and Philosophy",
    issn = "0360-5310",
    number = "2",

    }

    Tinkering with the survival lottery during a public health crisis. / Herrera, Chris.

    In: Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Vol. 34, No. 2, 01.04.2009, p. 181-194.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Tinkering with the survival lottery during a public health crisis

    AU - Herrera, Chris

    PY - 2009/4/1

    Y1 - 2009/4/1

    N2 - A well-known thought experiment has us ponder a lottery system that selects one person as the source of transplantable organs for two others. The organs are forcibly harvested and the "donor" dies, whereas the other two patients live. The Survival Lottery is supposed to get at the distinction between killing and letting die, but it is also a challenge to beliefs about moral duties: what are my obligations if my life could be used to save yours and another person's as well? A less extreme version of this thought experiment might have us imagining that officials of the public healthcare system would devise a similar lottery in the aftermath of a large-scale medical emergency. We could imagine that a natural disaster or an attack using biological weapons, for example, has so diminished the ability to provide public health care that in some communities, officials might consider implementing a lottery. To avoid the concerns about outright killing of selectees, officials might offer a wide range of participation in medical practice and research, not just organ allocation. Officials could ensure that no significant risks are involved, and selectees could in various ways be compensated. Would it be possible to ethically justify this "Healthcare Lottery" on the grounds that it was a temporary, yet necessary, infringement on autonomy?.

    AB - A well-known thought experiment has us ponder a lottery system that selects one person as the source of transplantable organs for two others. The organs are forcibly harvested and the "donor" dies, whereas the other two patients live. The Survival Lottery is supposed to get at the distinction between killing and letting die, but it is also a challenge to beliefs about moral duties: what are my obligations if my life could be used to save yours and another person's as well? A less extreme version of this thought experiment might have us imagining that officials of the public healthcare system would devise a similar lottery in the aftermath of a large-scale medical emergency. We could imagine that a natural disaster or an attack using biological weapons, for example, has so diminished the ability to provide public health care that in some communities, officials might consider implementing a lottery. To avoid the concerns about outright killing of selectees, officials might offer a wide range of participation in medical practice and research, not just organ allocation. Officials could ensure that no significant risks are involved, and selectees could in various ways be compensated. Would it be possible to ethically justify this "Healthcare Lottery" on the grounds that it was a temporary, yet necessary, infringement on autonomy?.

    KW - Emergency response

    KW - Lottery

    KW - Public health

    KW - Rationing

    KW - Utilitarianism

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=64949084935&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1093/jmp/jhp017

    DO - 10.1093/jmp/jhp017

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 19246352

    AN - SCOPUS:64949084935

    VL - 34

    SP - 181

    EP - 194

    JO - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

    JF - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

    SN - 0360-5310

    IS - 2

    ER -