본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Public Preferences for Allocation Principles for Scarce Medical Resources in the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea: Comparisons With Ethicists’ Recommendations

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate public preferences regarding allocation principles for scarce medical resources in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly in comparison with the recommendations of ethicists.Methods: An online survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1509 adults residing in Korea, from November 2 to 5, 2020. The degree of agreement with resource allocation principles in the context of the medical resource constraints precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic was examined. The results were then compared with ethicists’ recommendations. We also examined whether the perceived severity of COVID-19 explained differences in individual preferences, and by doing so, whether perceived severity helps explain discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists’ recommendations.Results: Overall, the public of Korea agreed strongly with the principles of “save the most lives,” “Koreans first,” and “sickest first,” but less with “random selection,” in contrast to the recommendations of ethicists. “Save the most lives” was given the highest priority by both the public and ethicists. Higher perceived severity of the pandemic was associated with a greater likelihood of agreeing with allocation principles based on utilitarianism, as well as those promoting and rewarding social usefulness, in line with the opinions of expert ethicists.Conclusions: The general public of Korea preferred rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic predominantly based on utilitarianism, identity and prioritarianism, rather than egalitarianism. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists’ recommendations.

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate public preferences regarding allocation principles for scarce medical resources in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly in comparison with the recommendations of ethicists.Methods: An online survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1509 adults residing in Korea, from November 2 to 5, 2020. The degree of agreement with resource allocation principles in the context of the medical resource constraints precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic was examined. The results were then compared with ethicists’ recommendations. We also examined whether the perceived severity of COVID-19 explained differences in individual preferences, and by doing so, whether perceived severity helps explain discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists’ recommendations.Results: Overall, the public of Korea agreed strongly with the principles of “save the most lives,” “Koreans first,” and “sickest first,” but less with “random selection,” in contrast to the recommendations of ethicists. “Save the most lives” was given the highest priority by both the public and ethicists. Higher perceived severity of the pandemic was associated with a greater likelihood of agreeing with allocation principles based on utilitarianism, as well as those promoting and rewarding social usefulness, in line with the opinions of expert ethicists.Conclusions: The general public of Korea preferred rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic predominantly based on utilitarianism, identity and prioritarianism, rather than egalitarianism. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists’ recommendations.

참고문헌 (37)

  1. Ranney ML, "Critical supply shortages - the need for ventilators and personal protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic", N Engl J Med, 382(18), pp.e41~ (2020)
  2. "Luckily, I bought my first public mask in 16 minutes" (2020)[URL]
  3. "The cumulative number of COVID-19 patients who died while waiting for hospitalization reached 8. Hankyoreh" (2020)[URL]
  4. Maves RC, "Triage of scarce critical care resources in COVID-19 an implementation guide for regional allocation : an expert panel report of the task force for mass critical care and the American College of Chest Physicians", Chest, 158(1), pp.212~225 (2020)
  5. 이경도, "코로나 19로 인한 자원 부족 상황에서 의료 자원의 배분 정의", 한국의료윤리학회지, 23(3), pp.145~169 (2020), 한국의료윤리학회[DOI]
  6. Truog RD, "The toughest triage-allocating ventilators in a pandemic", N Engl J Med, 382(21), pp.1973~1975 (2020)
  7. Emanuel EJ, "Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19", N Engl J Med, 382(21), pp.2049~2055 (2020)
  8. Persad G, "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions", Lancet, 373(9661), pp.423~431 (2009)
  9. Savulescu J, "Utilitarianism and the pandemic", Bioethics, 34(6), pp.620~632 (2020)
  10. Michalsen A, "Compelling ethical challenges in critical care and emergency medicine", pp.157~166 (2020), Springer
  11. Grover S, "Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation : differences between experts and the general public and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic", Br J Health Psychol, 25(4), pp.889~901 (2020)
  12. Fallucchi F, "Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of COVID-19: what do people think?", J Med Ethics, 47(1), pp.3~6 (2021)
  13. Schicktanz S, "The ethics of ‘public understanding of ethics’--why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients’ voices", Med Health Care Philos, 15(2), pp.129~139 (2012)
  14. Baker R, "Public values and plurality in health priority setting : what to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices", Soc Sci Med, 277, pp.113892~ (2021)
  15. Persad G, "Interdisciplinary perspectives on fairness, equity, and justice", pp.51~65 (2017), Springer
  16. Rosenbaum L, "Facing Covid-19 in Italy - ethics, logistics, and therapeutics on the epidemic’s front line", N Engl J Med, 382(20), pp.1873~1875 (2020)
  17. 이일학, "COVID-19 대유행과 그 대응: 분배정의론이 해결할 과제들", 생명, 윤리와 정책, 4(2), pp.19~37 (2020), (재) 국가생명윤리정책원[DOI]
  18. 허정식, "코로나 전염병 위기와 의료자원분배의 우선순위에 대한 법적 고찰 - 독일의 논의를 중심으로 -", 생명, 윤리와 정책, 4(2), pp.39~60 (2020), (재) 국가생명윤리정책원[DOI]
  19. 김준혁, "코로나19로 인한 응급 상황에서 의료자원 분배 및 백신 접종의 우선순위 설정", 생명, 윤리와 정책, 4(1), pp.67~96 (2020), (재) 국가생명윤리정책원[DOI]
  20. 박상혁, "감염병 대유행과 보건의료자원의 분배윤리", 동서인문학, (59), pp.261~291 (2020), 인문과학연구소
  21. Jin L, "Who gets the ventilator? Moral decision making regarding medical resource allocation in a pandemic", J Assoc Consum Res, 6(1), pp.159~167 (2021)
  22. Sharkey K, "Should patients with self-inflicted illness receive lower priority in access to healthcare resources? Mapping out the debate", J Med Ethics, 36(11), pp.661~665 (2010)
  23. Cappelen AW, "Responsibility in health care : a liberal egalitarian approach", J Med Ethics, 31(8), pp.476~480 (2005)
  24. Rogge J, "Who shall not be treated: public attitudes on setting health care priorities by person-based criteria in 28 nations", PLoS One, 11(6), pp.e0157018~ (2016)
  25. Krütli P, "How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources: ethical argumentation under scrutiny by health professionals and lay people", PLoS One, 11(7), pp.e0159086~ (2016)
  26. Gollust SE, "US adults’ preferences for public allocation of a vaccine for coronavirus disease 2019", JAMA Netw Open, 3(9), pp.e2023020~ (2020)
  27. Buckwalter W, "Public attitudes toward allocating scarce resources in the COVID-19 pandemic", PLoS One, 15(11), pp.e0240651~ (2020)
  28. Knight R, "Empirical population and public health ethics : a review and critical analysis to advance robust empirical-normative inquiry", Health (London), 20(3), pp.274~290 (2016)
  29. Wikler D, "Interfaces between bioethics and the empirical social sciences", pp.91~98 (2002), Pan American Health Organization
  30. Johri M, "Can a moral reasoning exercise improve response quality to surveys of healthcare priorities?", J Med Ethics, 35(1), pp.57~64 (2009)
  31. Denburg AE, "Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting? : a population-based randomized stated preference survey", Health Policy, 124(6), pp.647~658 (2020)
  32. Eyal N, "Can rationing through inconvenience be ethical?", Hastings Cent Rep, 48(1), pp.10~22 (2018)
  33. Williams I, "Rationing in health care: the theory and practice of priority setting", pp.27~46 (2012), Bristol University Press
  34. Boschele M, "COVID-19 science policy, experts, and publics: why epistemic democracy matters in ecological crises", OMICS, 24(8), pp.479~482 (2020)
  35. Furnham A, "The allocation of scarce medical resources across medical conditions", Psychol Psychother, 75(Pt 2), pp.189~203 (2002)
  36. Johri M, "The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention-type matter?", Health Econ, 14(7), pp.669~678 (2005)
  37. Salloch S, "Ethics by opinion poll? The functions of attitudes research for normative deliberations in medical ethics", J Med Ethics, 40(9), pp.597~602 (2014)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (11건)