Withholding Medical Interventions and Ageism During a Pandemic: A Model for Resource Allocation Decision Making

Decisions surrounding withholding and withdrawing medical interventions are common within the palliative and hospice care community. The unexpected effects of the recent pandemic ignited conversations about scarcity of resources and withholding medical interventions, based on age, among providers with limited expertise in palliative care. Using a case study and literature review, the aim of this article was to examine the best ethical considerations for resource allocation decision making that minimizes the effects of ageism. Public health ethics differs from clinical ethics by giving priority to promoting the greatest good over the protection of individual autonomy. This divide in ethics sheds light on the dangers associated with ageism. Age is often a component within clinical instruments that guide clinicians with allocation decisions. Basing decisions solely on age without evaluating health and functional status is dangerous and further propagates the discriminatory practices that fuel ageism. Previous research identified using ethical principles to guide resource allocation decisions but that may not be enough to protect the rights of older adults. A new model to guide these decisions should include advance directives and goals of care, medical indicators instead of demographics, functionality, transparent medical team, and impact of social determinants of health.