Class 7 - COVID-19 Flashcards
Covid case: Only a ventilator can save their lives, but there’s only one left
Patient 1: Santiago - is a 68-year-old doctor. He has moderate chronic obstructive airways disease. He contracts COVID-19 while caring for patients with the same disease. He develops respiratory failure.
Patient 2: Jason - is a 52-year-old CEO who contracted COVID-19 while traveling for business. He is otherwise in good health but develops respiratory failure.
- If there is only one ventilator available, who should receive it: Santiago or Jason?
Jason - What are the factors that you consider for this decision?
Age, Occupation, Health-condition, Pre-existing conditions - How would utilitarianism decide?
Probably Jason cuz he is in better health and he is younger even though Santiago is a doctor.
Better prognosis for Jason.
Utilitarians will PRIORITIZE individuals over others if resources need to be rationed
Utilitarian analysis of covid case
Benefits of saving Santiago
Probability of survival
Length of life
Quality of life
Social benefits
Cost of saving Santiago
Duration of treatment
Required resources
Benefits of saving Jason
Cheaper treatment cuz he’s healthier
He is younger so he “has more to live” for 🙁
Jason is a CEO so he helps society through his company (economy)
High probability of survival
Cost of saving Jason
Loss of a doctor (Santiago)
Could be used on patients in worse health (Utalitarianist would argue against this though)
Comapre net utility
A doctor who contributes greatly to society vs a younger healthier individual who contributed to the economy
utilitarian analysis: shutdown the government or not
Benefits of shutdown
Save money for the time being
Have time for better negotiations
Cost of shutdown
Economy is screwed
Loss of thousands (maybe millions) of jobs
Distrust between citizens and government
What is the next step?
Negotiate prior to the deadline
If this does not work then the government will most likely shutdown but the best thing to do after is to negotiate quickly so that people can go back to work
CEA: Cost Effectiveness Analysis
QALY: Quality Adjusted Life Year
utilitarian theory
Main argument: “An action or decision is ethical if and only if it brings about the greatest amount of net happiness (i.e., utility) than any alternative action or decision”
Assumption: Happiness/benefits and pain/costs can be aggregated in a quantitative way
consider two options
Option A
A mild pain (headache) lasts for 10 minutes. Let’s call it 1 unit of pain. This occurs to 100 people in a society
Option B
A 80-unit pain (i.e., 80 times stronger than a mild headache), which is lethal, occurs to 1 person
Which option would utilitarianism choose?
the one person
modifications to utilitarianism
- Minor gains, no matter how numerous, cannot reasonably outweigh a single serious harm
Example: If wearing masks for eight hours saves the life of one person, would it be more ethical than nobody wearing a mask? - Preventing moderate harms, if they are numerous enough, can outweigh a single serious harm
Example: If a prolonged lockdown causes moderate harms (unemployment, business failures, mental illness, etc.) that are sufficiently numerous, would it be more ethical to reopen the economy?
criticism to utilitarianism
For utilitarianism, maximizing utility (happiness, well-being, cost-effectiveness) is all that matters. Justice and rights are only important insofar as they maximize utility.
From the justice perspective:
Does utilitarianism exacerbate existing inequality?
Does utilitarianism allow (and even justify) bias and discrimination?
From the rights perspective:
Does utilitarianism infringe upon the individual’s liberty (negative rights)?
discussion questions about utilitarianism
- Does utilitarianism seek to save the greatest number of lives? Is it all about “the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people”?
Statistical lives > Identifiable lives
It is the greater number of people - When resources for treatment are limited, does utilitarianism treat every life equal?
More or less. Friends and family are not recognized here but when we factor other things such as age, health condition and benefits to society then no, Utilitarians start to look into other ways to ration treatment. - According to utilitarianism, early lockdown and strict enforcement of quarantine in East Asia and Europe were cost-effective. Does it ethically justify enforcement of severe policies, for example surveillance, contact tracing using mobile apps and heavy penalties for noncompliance?
Utilitarians would say yes. Safety and health > right to privacy if it means saving lives. Also they would want to secure well-being the most - According to some estimates, global eradication of malaria would cost $120 billion and potentially save 11 million lives. Should we focus more on this?
If the benefits outweigh the costs then yes. 11 million lives can translate to more than 120 billion and money aside this would result in the greatest amount of good for the world.
