Advertisement
Coronavirus pandemic
OpinionLetters

Letters | Coronavirus pandemic revives moral questions about nature’s rule of survival of the fittest

  • As Covid-19 spreads, intensive care units are overwhelmed and ventilators become scarce, the ancient moral dilemma that every society faces is now more acute: whom to save?

Reading Time:2 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
Revellers in the Plague Doctors Procession in Venice, Italy, last month, dressed up in face masks similar to those worn by plague doctors in the 17th century. Italy’s doctors are urged to prioritise those with greater survival chances and life expectancy. Photo: AFP
Letters
The Covid-19 mortality rate in Italy is over 12 per cent, the world’s highest, partly due to its rapidly ageing population, with 23 per cent of citizens aged 65 or older. Yet Japan, the world’s No. 1 ageing country, has a Covid-19 mortality rate of only over 2 per cent. The reason may be that the countries allocate treatment resources differently.
The Italian College of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care recently issued guidelines, stating that during this extraordinary period when the resources of intensive care units are extremely scarce, the principle is to save patients with a “much greater probability of survival and life expectancy”. That means young and healthy patients are likely to have the priority in receiving critical resources such as ventilators.
A New England Journal of Medicine article, jointly contributed to by three Harvard Medical School professors, cited an estimate from the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention that up to 21 million Americans would require hospitalisation during the pandemic. Up to 25 per cent of Covid-19 patients are believed to need ventilators. Millions of ventilators would be needed, but fewer than 170,000 are available in the US. Who should have priority?
Advertisement

To avoid medical workers directly responsible for the treatment being caught in a dilemma, and to reduce their psychological burden, the professors suggested that rationing be delegated to a triage committee composed of people with no clinical responsibilities for the care of these patients. The triage should exclude those who have suffered irreversible shock, assess the patient’s survival rate, and repeat assessing to check if the patient’s condition is improving.

This moral issue is also one that self-driving vehicles face: in an unavoidable collision involving pedestrians, should an autonomous vehicle be programmed to sacrifice the young or the elderly, the rich or the poor?

“The Moral Machine experiment”, the result of a survey with 2 million respondents worldwide published in Nature, showed that a cluster of North American and European countries were far more inclined to sacrifice the elderly, compared to other “moral clusters” of countries, each grouped by their responses. But if you were thinking of your elderly relatives, would your response be different?

Advertisement
Select Voice
Choose your listening speed
Get through articles 2x faster
1.25x
250 WPM
Slow
Average
Fast
1.25x