As the coronavirus pandemic intensified, many communities in the United States experienced shortages of ventilators, intensive care beds, and other medical supplies and treatments. Currently, there is no single national response to provide guidance on allocation of scarce health care resources. Accordingly, states have formulated various “triage protocols” to prioritize those who will receive care and those who may not have the same access to health care services when the population demand exceeds the supply. Triage protocols address general concepts of “fairness” under accepted medical ethics rules and the consensus is that limited medical resources “should be allocated to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”1 The actual utility of this utilitarian ethics approach is questionable, however, leaving many questions about what is “fair” unanswered. Saving as many people as possible during a health care crisis is a laudable goal but not at the expense of ignoring patients’s legal rights, which are not suspended during the crisis. This Article examines the triage protocols from six states to determine whose rights are being recognized and whose rights are being denied, answering the pivotal question: If there is potential for disparate impact of facially neutral state triage protocols against Black Americans and other ethnic groups, is this legally actionable discrimination? This may be a case of first impression for the courts to resolve.“[B]lack Americans are 3.5 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than [W]hite Americans … . Latinx people are almost twice as likely to die of the disease, compared with [W]hite people.” 2“Our civil rights laws protect the equal dignity of every human life from ruthless utilitarianism … . HHS is committed to leaving no one behind during an emergency, and this guidance is designed to help health care providers meet that goal.” — Roger Severino, Office of Civil Rights Director, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 3

中文翻译：

---

无情的功利主义？COVID-19 州分诊协议可能使患者受到种族歧视，提供者承担法律责任

随着冠状病毒大流行的加剧，美国的许多社区都出现了呼吸机、重症监护病床以及其他医疗用品和治疗方法的短缺。目前，没有单一的国家响应来为稀缺的医疗保健资源的分配提供指导。因此，各州制定了各种“分流协议”，以在人口需求超过供应时优先考虑那些将接受护理的人和那些可能无法获得相同医疗保健服务的人。分诊协议解决了公认的医学伦理规则下的“公平”的一般概念，并且共识是有限的医疗资源“应该分配给为最多的人做最大的好事”。1然而，这种功利主义伦理方法的实际效用是值得怀疑的，留下许多关于什么是“公平”的问题没有得到解答。在医疗保健危机期间拯救尽可能多的人是一个值得称赞的目标，但不能以忽视患者的合法权利为代价，这些权利在危机期间并未暂停。本文研究了六个州的分流协议，以确定谁的权利得到承认，谁的权利被剥夺，回答了一个关键问题：如果表面中立的州分流协议可能对美国黑人和其他族裔群体产生不同的影响，是这种在法律上可行的歧视？这可能是法院要解决的第一印象案件。“[B] 美国黑人死于 COVID-19 的可能性是 [W] 白人美国人的 3.5 倍......2“我们的民权法保护每个人生命的平等尊严免受无情的功利主义……。HHS 致力于在紧急情况下不让任何人掉队，本指南旨在帮助医疗保健提供者实现这一目标。” — 美国卫生与公众服务部民权办公室主任 Roger Severino。3