This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert Baker, PhD; Martin A. Strosberg, PhD
Union College Schenectady, NY

JAMA. 1994;272(19):1480-1481.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—We applaud the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee¹ for developing a consensus statement that forthrightly recognizes medical triage² as the principle of rationing appropriate to critical care admission and discharge decisions. Although we generally concur with the committee, we note one omission and one inconsistency in their consensus statement.

The committee properly asserts that triage decisions "must be made explicitly, fairly, and justly," and that "ethnic origin, race, sex, creed, social worth, and ability to pay should never be factors in determining triage decisions." Conspicuously absent from this list is "chronological age." The absence is conspicuous because Norman Daniels³ and others have been arguing that chronological age in itself (not merely as a prognostic indicator) is a sufficient reason for denying access to advanced medical technology. Failing to list chronological age as discriminatory opens the door to age rationing. We appreciate the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?