Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Another peep behind the veil

J McKie1, H Kuhse, J Richardson

  • 1Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.

Journal of Medical Ethics
|August 1, 1996
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Notes on a Case of Pneumothorax.

British medical journal·2010
Same author

Efficacy of ultrasound therapy for the management of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Osteoarthritis and cartilage·2010
Same author

Health, Climate Change and Sustainability: A systematic Review and Thematic Analysis of the Literature.

Environmental health insights·2010
Same author

Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients coinfected with HIV in the HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS), 1999-2007.

Journal of viral hepatitis·2010
Same author

Health, energy vulnerability and climate change: a retrospective thematic analysis of primary care trust policies and practices.

Public health·2009
Same author

Measuring the value of program outcomes: a review of multiattribute utility measures.

Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research·2009
Same journal

Assisted dying and autonomy as an end in itself: a response to Donaldson.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Ethics briefing.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Medical ethics and categorisation.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Suspension or prioritisation? Exploring the ethics of age-based rationing in adult ADHD services.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Ethics of not knowing who we are talking to in qualitative research.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Suicide is not a public health issue and perhaps very few things should be.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
See all related articles

This study critiques the use of Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in healthcare allocation, arguing random methods offer no survival advantage and may waste resources. It highlights the fallacy of perceived eligibility versus actual survival probability.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Health Economics
  • Public Health Policy

Background:

  • Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) are a common metric for health resource allocation.
  • Harris proposed random allocation as an alternative, suggesting higher population "eligibility" for survival.
  • Concerns exist regarding the ethical implications and resource efficiency of different healthcare allocation methods.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate Harris's argument regarding QALYs versus random allocation methods.
  • To analyze the concept of "eligibility" for survival in health economics.
  • To examine potential resource squandering associated with random allocation.

Main Methods:

  • Philosophical and logical analysis of Harris's claims.
  • Conceptual critique of "eligibility" in survival probability.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachHealth Care and Public HealthPhilosophical Approach

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examination of resource allocation efficiency.

    • Main Results:

    • Harris's argument relies on an equivocation of the term "eligible", which is misleading.
    • A 100% chance of being "eligible" does not guarantee a higher survival probability than QALYs.
    • Random allocation methods may lead to inefficient use of healthcare resources, a point not adequately addressed by Harris.

    Conclusions:

    • The perceived advantage of random allocation over QALYs in terms of population "eligibility" is illusory.
    • The actual survival probability remains unchanged regardless of the allocation method if based on the same underlying survival rates.
    • Further research is needed to address the resource squandering criticism of random allocation in healthcare.