As described in two articles in the September-October 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report, most crisis standards of care (CSC) plans include triage algorithms to guide the allocation of critical care resources to some patients and not others under conditions of extreme scarcity. The plans also include other important CSC strategies, but it is the notion of rationing scarce resources via triage that especially captured the imaginations of ethicists. Vigorous arguments have arisen over whether triage algorithms should be designed to prioritize patients based on predictions of short-, near-, or long-term survival. Additionally, there are ongoing debates about the ability of current algorithms to estimate patient survival accurately enough to be useful in triage and about the role of values like equity in triage protocols. Relatively few debates have noted, however, that while the development of CSC triage protocols has been based in medicine, public health, and ethics, the activation of CSC plans remains a political decision.

中文翻译：

---

危机护理标准——不仅仅是一个思想实验？

正如黑斯廷斯中心报告2021 年 9 月至 10 月期的两篇文章所述，大多数危机护理标准 (CSC) 计划都包括分类算法，以指导在极度稀缺的情况下将重症监护资源分配给某些患者而不是其他患者。这些计划还包括其他重要的 CSC 策略，但正是通过分类来配给稀有资源的概念尤其吸引了伦理学家的想象力。关于是否应该设计分流算法以根据短期、近期或长期生存率的预测对患者进行优先排序，出现了激烈的争论。此外，关于当前算法能够足够准确地估计患者生存以用于分流的能力以及诸如公平等价值在分流协议中的作用的争论正在进行中。然而，相对较少的辩论注意到，.