Setting Priorities Fairly in Response to Covid-19: Identifying Overlapping Consensus and Reasonable Disagreement

Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Volume 7, Issue 1, January-June 2020

U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 20-24

Posted: 15 Sep 2020

See all articles by Govind Persad

Govind Persad

University of Denver Sturm College of Law

Date Written: September 14, 2020

Abstract

Proposals for allocating scarce lifesaving resources in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic have aligned in some ways and conflicted in others. This paper attempts a kind of priority setting in addressing these conflicts. In the first part, we identify points on which we do not believe that reasonable people should differ—even if they do. These are (i) the inadequacy of traditional clinical ethics to address priority-setting in a pandemic; (ii) the relevance of saving lives; (iii) the flaws of first-come, first-served allocation; (iv) the relevance of post-episode survival; (v) the difference between age and other factors that affect life-expectancy; and (vi) the need to avoid quality-of-life judgments. In the second part, we lay out some positions on which reasonable people can and do differ. These include (i) conflicts between maximizing benefits and priority to the worst off; (ii) role-based priority; and (iii) whether patients’ existing lifesaving resources should be subject to redistribution.

Suggested Citation

Persad, Govind, Setting Priorities Fairly in Response to Covid-19: Identifying Overlapping Consensus and Reasonable Disagreement (September 14, 2020). Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Volume 7, Issue 1, January-June 2020, U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 20-24, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3692713

Govind Persad (Contact Author)

University of Denver Sturm College of Law ( email )

2255 E. Evans Avenue
Denver, CO 80208
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
247
PlumX Metrics