Nav: Home

Is it wrong to prioritize younger patients with COVID-19?

April 22, 2020

With services overburdened, healthcare professionals are having to decide who should receive treatment. But is it wrong to prioritise younger patients with COVID-19?

Two experts debate the issue in The BMJ this week.

There are three reasons why age should not be used to decide who should and who should not receive potentially life saving treatment, argues Dave Archard, Emeritus Professor at Queen's University in Belfast.

The first is that a simple "younger than" criterion is clearly unsatisfactory. It cannot be that an 18 year old is preferred to a 19 year old on the grounds of one year's difference in age.

This would be not much better morally than tossing a coin or a crude "first come, first served" principle using the time of arrival at a hospital to determine whether care is given, he writes.

Secondly, there is the fair innings argument. This holds that everyone should have an opportunity to lead a life of a certain duration. Resources should then be distributed (and care given selectively) to ensure that those who have yet to live that length of life are prioritised over those who have already managed to do so.

But while this has an intuitive appeal, there is no agreement on what counts as a fair innings. "Someone who has had her fair innings may yet have much to give the world that another who has not may be unable to offer," he says.

Finally, to discriminate between patients in the provision of care on the grounds of age is to send a message about the value of old people, he writes.

Such discrimination publicly expresses the view that older people are of lesser worth or importance than young people. "And it would be hard not to think-- even if it was not intended--that a cull of elderly people was what was being aimed at," he concludes.

But Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York, argues that age is a valid criterion when supported by data.

He points out that age has played a role for many decades in limiting access to care when rationing life saving treatments, such as access to renal dialysis and organ transplants.

That said, even in conditions of extreme scarcity "it would be discriminatory to simply invoke age to exclude those in need from services," he writes.

The key ethical question, he says, is whether age by itself is ever a morally relevant factor in deciding who gets care when rationing is unavoidable.

Like Archard, he points to the notion of fair innings, but says this commitment to equality of opportunity has nothing to do with the relative contributions of old people versus young people.

However, if the goal is to save the most lives with scarce resources then age may matter if there is a diminishing chance of survival with increased age, he adds.

"Indeed, the relevance of old age as a predictive factor of efficacy--combined with the powerful principle of healthcare affording equality of opportunity to enjoy a life--makes age an important factor in making the terrible choice of who will receive scarce resources in a pandemic," he concludes. "Ageism has no place in rationing, but age may."
Externally peer-reviewed? Yes

Type of evidence: Opinion

Subject: Healthcare resources


Related Age Articles:

How we age
It is well understood that mortality rates increase with age.
When you're 84...What should life look like as we age?
What will your life look like when you're 84? When a health system leader put that question to Lewis A.
Age matters: Paternal age and the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children
It is no secret that genetic factors play a role in determining whether children have neurodevelopmental disorders.
'Frailty' from age 40 -- what to look out for
With all eyes on avoiding major illness this year, health researchers are urging people as young as 40 to build physical and mental health to reduce or even avoid 'frailty' and higher mortality risk.
Why life can get better as we age -- study
People say life gets better with age. Now research suggests this may be because older people have the wisdom and time to use mindfulness as a means to improve wellbeing.
What causes an ice age to end?
Research by an international team helps to resolve some of the mystery of why ice ages end by establishing when they end.
New evidence of the Sahara's age
The Sahara Desert is vast, generously dusty, and surprisingly shy about its age.
When considering presidential candidates, age is just a number
A new white paper shows there is no such thing as being too old to be president.
Why sex becomes less satisfying with age
The number of women regularly having sex declines with age, and the number of women enjoying sex postmenopause is even lower.
A new 'golden' age for electronics?
Scientists at Nagoya University, Japan, have created materials that shrink uniformly in all directions when heated under normal everyday conditions, using a cheap and industrially scalable process.
More Age News and Age Current Events

Trending Science News

Current Coronavirus (COVID-19) News

Top Science Podcasts

We have hand picked the top science podcasts of 2020.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Listen Again: The Power Of Spaces
How do spaces shape the human experience? In what ways do our rooms, homes, and buildings give us meaning and purpose? This hour, TED speakers explore the power of the spaces we make and inhabit. Guests include architect Michael Murphy, musician David Byrne, artist Es Devlin, and architect Siamak Hariri.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#576 Science Communication in Creative Places
When you think of science communication, you might think of TED talks or museum talks or video talks, or... people giving lectures. It's a lot of people talking. But there's more to sci comm than that. This week host Bethany Brookshire talks to three people who have looked at science communication in places you might not expect it. We'll speak with Mauna Dasari, a graduate student at Notre Dame, about making mammals into a March Madness match. We'll talk with Sarah Garner, director of the Pathologists Assistant Program at Tulane University School of Medicine, who takes pathology instruction out of...
Now Playing: Radiolab

What If?
There's plenty of speculation about what Donald Trump might do in the wake of the election. Would he dispute the results if he loses? Would he simply refuse to leave office, or even try to use the military to maintain control? Last summer, Rosa Brooks got together a team of experts and political operatives from both sides of the aisle to ask a slightly different question. Rather than arguing about whether he'd do those things, they dug into what exactly would happen if he did. Part war game part choose your own adventure, Rosa's Transition Integrity Project doesn't give us any predictions, and it isn't a referendum on Trump. Instead, it's a deeply illuminating stress test on our laws, our institutions, and on the commitment to democracy written into the constitution. This episode was reported by Bethel Habte, with help from Tracie Hunte, and produced by Bethel Habte. Jeremy Bloom provided original music. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at     You can read The Transition Integrity Project's report here.