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
    Preferring non-disabled individual B over disabled indivi... — Carmelics
    Home/Bioethics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Preferring non-disabled individual B over disabled individual A is acceptable when treatment to A would be a total waste of a scarce resource

    BioethicsJustice & Punishment
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Treatment effectiveness for A is completely negated by A's condition
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Allocating scarce resources where they produce no benefit is wasteful
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.It would be unfair to allocate a resource to A if B could genuinely benefit from it
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The claim that treatment is 'totally wasted' on A presupposes a narrow, cure-oriented conception of medical benefit that excludes pain relief, dignity, and palliative value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Norman Daniels and Frances Kamm both argue that 'benefit' in allocation must include improvements to a person's condition relative to their baseline, not merely restoration to species-typical functioning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Defining waste by reference to a non-disabled norm systematically disadvantages disabled persons by embedding their disadvantage into the very metric used to evaluate their claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Elizabeth Anderson's relational egalitarianism holds that just institutions must treat each person as a full social equal, not merely maximize aggregate welfare across persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Using disability status as a tiebreaker for resource allocation treats the disabled person's life as inherently less worth sustaining, which violates the equal moral standing that grounds any legitimate allocation scheme.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's P3 assumes the fairness of outcomes without examining whether the prior social failure to accommodate disability created the conditions making treatment appear 'wasteful' in the first place.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    BioethicsJustice & Punishment

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    Allocating scarce resources where they produce no benefit is wastefulDefining waste by reference to a non-disabled norm systematically disadvantages ...Elizabeth Anderson's relational egalitarianism holds that just institutions must...It would be unfair to allocate a resource to A if B could genuinely benefit from...
    +5 moreShow less
    Norman Daniels and Frances Kamm both argue that 'benefit' in allocation must inc...The claim that treatment is 'totally wasted' on A presupposes a narrow, cure-ori...The supporting argument's P3 assumes the fairness of outcomes without examining ...Treatment effectiveness for A is completely negated by A's conditionUsing disability status as a tiebreaker for resource allocation treats the disab...

    Similar

    Favoring a non-disabled individual B over a disabled individual A is a...86%CEA-based preference for non-disabled individuals is morally troubling...84%CEA and QALY allocation strategies would prima facie favor non-disable...82%In cases (i), (ii), and (iv), the preference for the non-disabled indi...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit