|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
02699nam a22003857a 4500 |
| 003 |
AR-BaFLA |
| 005 |
20240829163705.0 |
| 008 |
240812t2023 ag ||||fs2||| 00| 0 eng d |
| 037 |
|
|
|n Depósito reglamentario
|
| 040 |
|
|
|a AR-BaFLA
|c AR-BaFLA
|b eng
|e rda
|
| 041 |
0 |
|
|a eng
|
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Leani, Lautaro
|9 38977
|e aut.
|
| 110 |
2 |
|
|a FLACSO. Programa Argentina
|9 110
|
| 245 |
1 |
3 |
|a Is the use of dalys and qalys ethically permissible in triage decisions? :
|b Covid-19 and equity considerations from a queer-crip perspective [Separata] /
|c Lautaro Leani, Ignacio Mastroleo
|h DIG
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a pp. 126-154
|
| 336 |
|
|
|2 rdacontent
|a Texto
|b txt
|
| 337 |
|
|
|2 rdamedia
|a computadora
|b c
|
| 338 |
|
|
|2 rdacarrier
|a Recurso el línea
|b cr
|
| 504 |
|
|
|a incl. ref.
|
| 505 |
|
|
|a This paper explores the symbolic and material implications of the use of DALYs and QALYs as priority or tie breaker criteria in triage decisions. It aims to answer the question of their ethical permissibility based on the case of the COVID-19 pandemic. For this purpose, theories framed in a queer-crip perspective and ethical frameworks of equity will be used. From a queer-crip perspective, the use of DALYs and QALYs in triage decisions discriminates against and excludes people with disabilities, as it allocates scarce resources based on ableist value judgments about people's quality of life, rather than on evidence. From the point of view of equity, it may imply and reinforce structural injustices involving inequities, that is,avoidable or remediable inequalities. This analysis will argue that the use of DALYs and QALYs categories in triage decisions allocates potentially life-saving resources based on ableist value judgments that lead to an unfair distribution of risks, burdens, and costs. Finally, two objections related to the relevance or necessity of using these or similar categories as criteria will be addressed: the independent cases of structural inequities and the relevance of patient functional status to maximize lives saved.
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a DISCAPACIDAD
|9 16698
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a CALIDAD DE LA VIDA
|9 3027
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a CICLO DE VIDA
|9 11120
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a LGBTIQ+
|9 34823
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a EQUIDAD
|9 1340
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a TOMA DE DECISIONES
|9 1070
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a ETICA MEDICA
|9 10121
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a DESIGUALDAD SOCIAL
|9 99
|
| 650 |
|
4 |
|a PANDEMIA
|9 11878
|
| 690 |
|
|
|a BIOETICA
|
| 700 |
1 |
|
|a Mastroleo, Ignacio
|9 19323
|e aut.
|
| 773 |
|
|
|d Florianópolis : Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Núcleo de Ética e Filosofia Política, 2023
|t Ethic@. An international journal for moral philosophy
|a Vol. 22 no 1
|x 1677-2954
|
| 856 |
|
|
|u https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2023.e91703
|
| 942 |
|
|
|c ART
|
| 999 |
|
|
|c 51541
|d 51541
|