.png){kind=icon}
返回
Against tiebreaking arguments in priority setting
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1136/jme-2023-108972.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
分享.png){kind=icon}
收藏
摘要
En 中文
Fair priority setting is based on morally sound criteria. Still, there will be cases when these criteria, our primary considerations, are tied and therefore do not help us in choosing one allocation over another. It is sometimes suggested that such cases can be handled by tiebreakers. In this paper, we discuss two versions of tiebreakers suggested in the literature. One version is to preserve fairness or impartiality by holding a lottery. The other version is to allow secondary considerations, considerations that are not part of our primary priority setting criteria, to be decisive. We argue that the argument for preserving impartiality by holding a lottery is sound, while the argument for using tiebreakers as secondary considerations is not. Finally, we argue that the instances where a tiebreaker seems necessary are precisely the situations where we have strong reasons for preferring a lottery. We conclude that factors that we consider valuable should all be included among the primary considerations, while ties should be settled by lotteries.
Keyword:
Decision Making
Ethics
AI总结
对已上传原文的论文进行重点信息的提取，主要内容包括：简要概述、研究摘要、背景介绍、关键亮点、图文解析、展望与总结。
期刊
IF:
3.4
论文数:
7.0K
被引数:
6.4K
机构
引用论文
Alternative modeling approaches to the geochemical cycles of carbon, sulfur, and strontium isotopes
OAAI
OAAI分享收藏Variation in Ventilator Allocation Guidelines by US State During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic A Systematic Review.png)
JAMA NETWORK OPENOAAI
JAMA NETWORK OPENIF9.7
OAAI分享收藏 没有更多内容
没有更多内容