Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Differences in life expectancy are only relevant when the... — Carmelics
    Home/Bioethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→CEA-based preference for non-disabled individuals is morally troubling in cases where the disability only partially compromises treatment effectiveness

    Differences in life expectancy are only relevant when they are very stark (e.g., weeks versus decades)

    BioethicsJustice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    BioethicsJustice & Punishment

    Related

    CEA-based preference for non-disabled individuals is morally troubling in cases ...In cases (i), (ii), and (iv), the preference for the non-disabled individual is ...It is not clearly relevant what kind of life a person would live after receiving...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Bioethics
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    The argument assumes longer lifespan necessarily means greater care ne...71%If the quality of life rather than its quantity is what matters, then ...70%The longer FDS lives, the worse FDS might retrospectively render EAS's...68%Intuitions about favoring B over A shift depending on the magnitude of...67%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: disability-care-rationing
    View source passageHide passage
    In all of these scenarios, the CEA and QALY allocation strategy would prima facie favor the non-disabled individual B. Both the priority and the indirect benefits problems are at work here. Although this result seems intuitively acceptable for case (iii), since the treatment to A would be a total waste of a scarce resource, and unfair if B could benefit from it. But it is far less clear what we would say if the effectiveness of the treatment was less obviously compromised by the disability. As f

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective