@article{ART002072588},
author={이경도},
title={A Response to the Critics of the Prudential Lifespan Approach},
journal={Korean Journal of Medical Ethics },
issn={2005-8284},
year={2015},
volume={18},
number={4},
pages={457-477},
doi={10.35301/ksme.2015.18.4.457}
TY - JOUR
AU - 이경도
TI - A Response to the Critics of the Prudential Lifespan Approach
JO - Korean Journal of Medical Ethics
PY - 2015
VL - 18
IS - 4
PB - The Korean Society For Medical Ethics
SP - 457
EP - 477
SN - 2005-8284
AB - Norman Daniels proposed the prudential lifespan approach (PLA) to resolve debates about ageism.
In this approach, he redefined the allocation of healthcare resources, especially regarding life-sustaining treatment, between age groups and tried to change the focus of the ageism debates from competition between the young and the old to personal allocative decisions within one’s lifespan. Using this approach, Daniels justified rationing healthcare resources by age in some limited settings. However, several critical problems remain with the justification of age-based rationing made by PLA. Brauer and Schefczyk have pointed to philosophical as well as practical problems with the PLA. This article examines both the PLA and the critiques of it offered by these two authors. While maintaining the basic idea of the PLA, several modifications to the justification of age-based rationing using PLA are made in order to solve these both the practical and philosophical problems. Furthermore, recommendations for the application of this modified justification of age-based rationing in a real-world setting are given.
KW - resource allocation;intergenerational relation;ageism;health resources
DO - 10.35301/ksme.2015.18.4.457
ER -
이경도. (2015). A Response to the Critics of the Prudential Lifespan Approach. Korean Journal of Medical Ethics , 18(4), 457-477.
이경도. 2015, "A Response to the Critics of the Prudential Lifespan Approach", Korean Journal of Medical Ethics , vol.18, no.4 pp.457-477. Available from: doi:10.35301/ksme.2015.18.4.457
이경도 "A Response to the Critics of the Prudential Lifespan Approach" Korean Journal of Medical Ethics 18.4 pp.457-477 (2015) : 457.
이경도. A Response to the Critics of the Prudential Lifespan Approach. 2015; 18(4), 457-477. Available from: doi:10.35301/ksme.2015.18.4.457
이경도. "A Response to the Critics of the Prudential Lifespan Approach" Korean Journal of Medical Ethics 18, no.4 (2015) : 457-477.doi: 10.35301/ksme.2015.18.4.457
이경도. A Response to the Critics of the Prudential Lifespan Approach. Korean Journal of Medical Ethics , 18(4), 457-477. doi: 10.35301/ksme.2015.18.4.457
이경도. A Response to the Critics of the Prudential Lifespan Approach. Korean Journal of Medical Ethics . 2015; 18(4) 457-477. doi: 10.35301/ksme.2015.18.4.457
이경도. A Response to the Critics of the Prudential Lifespan Approach. 2015; 18(4), 457-477. Available from: doi:10.35301/ksme.2015.18.4.457
이경도. "A Response to the Critics of the Prudential Lifespan Approach" Korean Journal of Medical Ethics 18, no.4 (2015) : 457-477.doi: 10.35301/ksme.2015.18.4.457
