The ventilator allocation at St Marta's
St Marta's, a small island hospital, has six intensive care beds with ventilators; two are occupied by patients expected to recover. Eight patients need ventilatory support within the next 12 hours, and no transfer is possible because the air ambulance is grounded by weather. The patients are: a 34-year-old nurse with severe pneumonia; an 81-year-old man with advanced frailty and a 15% predicted survival; a 45-year-old mother of three with a treatable but slow condition; a 19-year-old student with a 40% predicted survival; a 58-year-old priest; a 60-year-old with dementia and a hip infection; a 27-year-old with a drug overdose and uncertain prognosis; and a 50-year-old with a severe disability and an 80% predicted survival. One of the eight has already been assessed by the same consultant who chairs the ethics committee. The clinical director asks whether age, disability, or social role may be used as criteria, and who should decide.
1. Compare a utilitarian 'save the most life-years' rule with a rule that treats all lives as of equal worth for this allocation.
Read the worked answer
Utilitarian rule. Each bed goes where expected benefit is greatest, measured in lives saved or life-years gained. On this basis the 50-year-old with 80% predicted survival, the 34-year-old nurse and the 45-year-old mother rank highly; the 81-year-old with 15% survival and advanced frailty ranks last, and the overdose patient's uncertain prognosis counts against him. Strength: it is outcome-focused, transparent and tries to do the most good with six beds. Weakness: 'life-years' systematically discounts older people and people with disabilities, and it relies on survival estimates that are probabilistic and can encode bias.
Equal-worth rule. Each life has the same value, so selection uses only clinical criteria about short-term benefit from intensive care (for example, likelihood of surviving this episode), never age, disability, or social contribution. Where clinical need and benefit are genuinely equal, a lottery or first-come rule decides. Strength: it protects the vulnerable from judgements about whose life is worth living. Weakness: it can ignore real differences in prognosis and may save fewer lives overall.
Reasoning to a judgement. The two rules converge more than they appear to: both would exclude a patient who cannot benefit from ventilation, and both would refuse to rank the priest above the mother. The defensible middle ground is to use objective short-term survival benefit plus a tie-break lottery, and to exclude social worth entirely - because 'social role' is the criterion most open to prejudice and hardest to justify to those not chosen.
2. Would giving the nurse priority be ethical? Argue both sides.
Read the worked answer
For. There is a reciprocity argument: healthcare workers accept elevated risk in caring for others, and a society may recognise that by giving them priority when a resource is scarce. There is also an instrumental argument: the nurse is likely to return to work and save further lives, so prioritising her produces more total benefit. Both arguments have real weight and have been used in real pandemic plans.
Against. Instrumental reasoning treats her as a means to other people's welfare rather than as a patient with an equal claim; if she were a cleaner at the hospital the same logic would not apply, which shows the criterion is arbitrary. A rule allowing occupational priority is also open to abuse - every professional group will argue it is essential, and the decision will look like self-dealing when clinicians sit on the committee. Reciprocity is a stronger argument than instrumental value because it justifies priority as owed rather than as purchased, but it must be limited and publicly defended.
Reaching a judgement. A modest, pre-published reciprocity rule that applies consistently to all frontline staff, and never overrides a large difference in prognosis, is ethically defensible. Case-by-case preference for a sympathetic individual is not: it is inconsistent, unfair to the other seven, and destroys the trust that makes triage possible. The committee should ask whether it would apply the same rule if the nurse were a stranger.
3. Identify two procedural safeguards that would make the decision defensible even to those not selected.
Read the worked answer
1. Criteria set and published in advance, applied to all. If the hospital agrees, before the crisis peaks, that beds are allocated on likelihood of short-term benefit with a lottery for ties, then no patient is being judged by a standard invented for them. People accept adverse decisions far more readily when the rule is general and known, and advance agreement also prevents clinicians from unconsciously favouring patients they know.
2. Independent second review, separated from treating relationships. The consultant who has already assessed one of the eight should not be the person who decides, and ideally should not chair the committee for that case. A second clinician who does not know the patients should confirm the clinical scoring, and the reasons should be recorded. This protects against bias, protects the clinicians involved, and gives families a route to challenge a decision.
Supporting measures would include: telling each patient or family honestly what is happening and why, offering palliative care and psychological support, keeping a written record, and reviewing decisions as beds free up - allocation is a rolling judgement, not a final verdict. The ethical point is that no procedure makes a tragic choice good; good procedure makes it fair, reviewable, and respectful of the people it excludes.