Premium
Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation: Differences between experts and the general public and implications for the COVID‐19 pandemic
Author(s) -
Grover Simmy,
McClelland Alastair,
Furnham Adrian
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
british journal of health psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.05
H-Index - 88
eISSN - 2044-8287
pISSN - 1359-107X
DOI - 10.1111/bjhp.12439
Subject(s) - pandemic , preference , unanimity , lottery , psychology , resource allocation , covid-19 , reciprocity (cultural anthropology) , sample (material) , scarcity , public health , social preferences , social psychology , economics , political science , medicine , infectious disease (medical specialty) , microeconomics , disease , market economy , chemistry , nursing , pathology , chromatography , law
This study concerns what lay people believe is the best way to allocate scarce medical resources. A sample of 515 individuals completed a short questionnaire asking them to rank‐order eight different ethical positions with respect to the allocation of scarce resources. They showed a strong preference for the ‘saves most lives’ and ‘sickest first’ options, with ‘reciprocity’ and a ‘lottery’ being least favoured. There was a reasonable degree of unanimity amongst respondents and comparatively few correlations with individual difference factors such as demography. The preference results are compared to expert recommendations (Emanuel et al ., 2020, N. Engl. J. Med ., 382 , 2049) made in light of the current coronavirus pandemic, and differences are highlighted. Implications for scare medical resource allocations are discussed, and limitations of the study acknowledged.