Proposals for allocating scarce lifesaving resources in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic have aligned in some ways and conflicted in others. This paper attempts a kind of priority setting in addressing these conflicts. In the first part, we identify points on which we do not believe that reasonable people should differ—even if they do. These are (i) the inadequacy of traditional clinical ethics to address priority-setting in a pandemic; (ii) the relevance of saving lives; (iii) the flaws of first-come, first-served allocation; (iv) the relevance of post-episode survival; (v) the difference between age and other factors that affect life-expectancy; and (vi) the need to avoid quality-of-life judgments. In the second part, we lay out some positions on which reasonable people can and do differ. These include (i) conflicts between maximizing benefits and priority to the worst off; (ii) role-based priority; and (iii) whether patients’ existing lifesaving resources should be subject to redistribution.

中文翻译：

---

为响应Covid-19而公平地设定优先级：识别重叠的共识和合理的分歧。

面对Covid-19大流行，分配稀缺的救生资源的建议在某些方面已经达成共识，而在另一些方面却发生了冲突。本文尝试了一种优先级设置来解决这些冲突。在第一部分中，我们确定了我们认为合理的人不应该有所不同的观点，即使他们确实如此。这些是：（i）传统的临床伦理不足以解决大流行中确定优先重点的问题；（ii）挽救生命的重要性；（iii）先到先得的分配方式的缺陷；（iv）剧集后生存的相关性；（v）年龄与影响预期寿命的其他因素之间的差异；（vi）有必要避免生活质量的判断。在第二部分中，我们列出了一些合理的人可以并且确实会有所不同的立场。其中包括：（i）利益最大化与最坏情况优先权之间的冲突；（ii）基于角色的优先级；（iii）是否应重新分配患者现有的救生资源。