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
    Treating lower capacity to benefit as a priori reflects t... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) systematically disadvantages people with disabilities because it is intrinsically discriminatory.

    Treating lower capacity to benefit as a priori reflects the prejudice that disabled lives are of intrinsically less value.

    BioethicsMoral Responsibility
    ?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

    Moral ResponsibilityBioethics

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Justice & Punishment
    1 linked

    Related

    CEA uses 'capacity to benefit' as a criterion for allocating healthcare resource...Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) systematically disadvantages people with disab...Some bioethicists treat lower capacity to benefit for disabled persons as an a p...

    Similar

    Some bioethicists treat lower capacity to benefit for disabled persons...87%When a criterion systematically reflects a prior value judgment that d...81%Respectable bioethicists have explicitly asserted that the 'disabled l...78%For a utilitarian consequentialist, there is no a priori reason to thi...78%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: disability-care-rationing
    View source passageHide passage
    Some disability advocates argue that there is no real dilemma here since “capacity to benefit” is merely a cloak for the prejudice that the life of disabled person, like that of the elderly, is of intrinsically less value and deserving of less effort to preserve or improve (Asch 2001). These advocates have a point since precisely this view can be seen in the pronouncements of respectable bioethicists who do assert that the “disabled life” is fundamentally inferior (Kuhse & Singer 1985; Singe

    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