When life-saving medical resources are scarce and not everyone can be saved, is the only relevant goal saving the most lives? Or can other factors be considered, at least as tiebreakers, such as how early in life the people we don't save will die or how much future life they are likely to lose? This commentary defends a multiprinciple allocation approach that considers objectives in addition to saving more lives, including preventing early death and preventing harm in the form of lost future life. Particularly compared to an arbitrary, coin-flip tiebreaker, this multiprinciple approach more effectively prevents harm, prioritizes the worst-off, mitigates socioeconomic and racial health disparities, and tracks public values regarding allocation under scarcity—and is legally sound.

中文翻译：

---

反对排他性生存主义：防止失去生命和保护资源分配中的弱势群体

当救命医疗资源稀缺，不是每个人都能得救的时候，拯救最多生命的唯一相关目标是什么？或者可以考虑其他因素，至少作为决胜局，例如我们没有拯救的人会在多早的时候死去，或者他们可能会失去多少未来的生命？这篇评论为多原则分配方法辩护，该方法除了拯救更多生命之外还要考虑目标，包括防止早逝和防止以失去未来生命的形式造成伤害。特别是与任意的、抛硬币的决胜局相比，这种多原则的方法更有效地防止伤害，优先考虑最坏的情况，减轻社会经济和种族健康差异，并跟踪关于稀缺分配的公共价值观——并且在法律上是合理的。