Cited by 931Ethics and bioethics in healthcareOrgan Donation and TransplantationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions

Open access
Persad, Govind, Wertheimer, Alan, Emanuel, Ezekiel J·2009·The Lancet

Abstract

Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system-the complete lives system-which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60137-9

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A series of works [13, 15, 16, 55, 61, 69] refer to justifications as ways of ensuring that a decision is good (in contrast to understanding a decision), which is in line with the definition proposed in this paper.

    “However, a series of works [13, 15, 16, 55, 61, 69], refer to justifications as ways of ensuring that a decision is good (in contrast to understanding a decision), which is in line with the definition proposed in this paper.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
  2. Veatch RM. Disaster preparedness and triage. Mount Sinai J Med 2005; 72: 236-41.
  3. Kamm FM. Morality, mortality, volume 1: death and whom to save from it. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
  4. Ramsey P. The patient as person: exploration in medical ethics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.
  5. Childress JF. Putting patients fi rst in organ allocation: an ethical analysis of the US debate. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2001; 10: 365-76.
  6. Billittier AJ. Who goes fi rst? J Public Health Manag Pract 2005; 11: 267-68.
  7. Howard DH. Hope versus effi ciency in organ allocation. Transplantation 2001; 72: 1169-73.
  8. Nagel T. Mortal questions. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
  9. American Medical Association. Allocation of limited medical resources. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/Code_ of_Med_Eth/opinion/opinion203.html (accessed Jan 19, 2009).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Persad, G., Wertheimer, A., & Emanuel, E. J.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Emanuel, Ezekiel J
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-01
Volume
373
Issue
9661
Pages
423-431
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2133393736
Cited by
929
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 82 · 2021: 115 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 53
FWCI
47.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • Colorado Law Scholarly Commons (University of Colorado Colorado Springs) (submittedVersion)
  • eYLS (Yale Law School) (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Organ Donation and Transplantation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
allocation of scarce medical resources, organ allocation, vaccine allocation, allocation principles, equal treatment, social utility, quality-adjusted life years, disability-adjusted life years, lottery allocation, prognosis, instrumental values, resource allocation ethics
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Ethics, Medical, Health Priorities, Humans, Morals, Prognosis, Health Care Rationing, Patient Selection, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Resource Allocation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review