Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 159–169 | Cite as

Moral Principles for Allocating Scarce Medical Resources in an Influenza Pandemic

  • Marcel VerweijEmail author


One of the societal problems in a new influenza pandemic will be how to use the scarce medical resources that are available for prevention and treatment, and what medical, epidemiological and ethical justifications can be given for the choices that have to be made. Many things may become scarce: personal protective equipment, antiviral drugs, hospital beds, mechanical ventilation, vaccination, etc. In this paper I discuss two general ethical principles for priority setting (utility and equity) and explain how these principles will often point in diverging directions. Moreover, each of these principles can be understood in different, again often competing, ways. Notwithstanding these controversies and conflicts, in the context of pandemic response there are at least some points of convergence: several policies can be justified by appeal to different ethical principles and theories. Convergence may be found with respect to a focus on saving the most lives (instead of other aggregative accounts); giving priority antiviral prophylaxis and therapy for life-saving pandemic responders; and, partly depending on epidemiology of the pandemic, to prioritise vaccination of children. Although decision-making about access to intensive care will involve choices with immediate tragic implications, the ethical complexity of these choices is relatively modest (although decisions will not be easy): there are persuasive moral reasons for giving priority to patients who are expected to benefit most within the shortest time. Finally, in the last section I tentatively argue that constraints on people’s freedom, as necessary for an effective public health approach, may support giving somewhat more weight to saving the most lives, than to concerns of equity.


Ethics Justice Influenza Pandemic Priority-setting Rationing Triage Efficiency Equity Fairness Equitable access Vaccination Antiviral drugs Neuraminidase inhibitors Intensive care Mechanical ventilation Harm principle 


  1. Arneson, R. 2002. Egalitarianism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2002 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta.
  2. Barry, J.M. 2005. The story of influenza. In Institutes of Medicine: The threat of pandemic influenza: are we ready?, ed. S.L. Knobler, A. Mack, et al., 57068. Washington: National Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Brett, A.S. and A. Zuger. 2005. The run of Tamiflu—Should physicians precribe on demand? New England Journal of Medicine 353(25): 2636–2637.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brock, D. 2003. Separate spheres and indirect benefits. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1: 4. doi: 10.1186/1478-7547-1-4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christian, M.D., L. Hawryluck, R.S. Was, N.M. Lazar, et al. 2006. Development of a triage protocol for critical care during an influenza pandemic. Canadian Medical Association Journal 175(11): 1377–1381. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060911.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniels, N. 1988. Am I my parents’ keeper? An essay on justice between the young and the old. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Daniels, N. 2008. Just health. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Emanuel, E. and A. Wertheimer. 2006. Who should get influenza vaccine when not all can? Science 313: 854–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gostin, L.O. and B.E. Berkman. 2007. Pandemic influenza: Ethics, law, and the public’s health. Administrative Law Review 59(1): 121.Google Scholar
  10. Hick, J.L. and D.T. O’Laughlin. 2006. Concept of operations for triage of mechanical ventilation in an epidemic. Academic Emergency Medicine 13(2): 223–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hirose, I. 2001. Saving the greater number without combining claims. Analysis 61(4): 341–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, N.P.A.S. and J. Mueller. 2002. Updating the accounts: global mortality of the 1918–1920 “Spanish” influenza pandemic. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 76: 105–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kamm, F.M. 1993. Morality, mortality. Death and whom to save from it. Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kass, N.E., J. Otto, D. O’Brien, and M. Minson. 2008. Ethics and severe pandemic influenza: maintaining essential functions through a fair and considered response. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 6(3): 227–236. doi: 10.1089/bsp. 2008.0020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kotalik, J. 2005. Preparing for an influenza pandemic: ethical issues. Bioethics 19(4): 422–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Longini, I.M., E. Halloran, A. Nizam, and Y. Yang. 2004. Containing pandemic influenza with antiviral agents. American Journal of Epidemiology 159: 623–633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marsh, R. 2006. Hard decisions will have to be made: view from intensive care. BMJ 332: 790–791. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7544.790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mill, J.S. 1859. On liberty. London: John W. Parker and Son.Google Scholar
  19. Moscona, A. 2005. Oseltamivir resistance—Disabling our influenza defenses. New England Journal of Medicine 353(25): 2633–2636.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parfit, D. 1997. Equality and priority. Ratio 10(3): 202–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rawls, J. 1971. Theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Scanlon, T. 1998. What we owe to each other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics Pandemic Influenza Working Group. 2005. Stand on guard for thee. Ethical considerations in preparedness planning for pandemic influenza. Joint Centre for Biomedical Ethics: Toronto.Google Scholar
  24. Verweij, M. F. 2008. Equitable access to therapeutic and prophylactic measures. In: Addressing ethical issues in pandemic influenza planning, : World Health Organization Discussion Papers. Geneva: WHO. WHO/HSE/EPR/GIP/2008.2Google Scholar
  25. WHO. 2005a. Global influenza preparedness plan. The role of WHO and recommendations for national measures before and during pandemics. Geneva: WHO. WHO/CDS/CSR/GIP/2005.5.Google Scholar
  26. WHO. 2005b. Responding to the avian influenza pandemic threat. Recommended strategic actions. Geneva: WHO. WHO/CDS/CSR/GIP/2005.8.Google Scholar
  27. WHO. 2007. Ethical considerations in developing a public health response to pandemic influenza. Geneva: WHO. WHO/CDS/EPR/GIP/2007.2.Google Scholar
  28. Williams, A. 1997. Intergenerational equity: An exploration of the “fair innings” argument. Health Economics 6: 117–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ethics InstituteUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations