Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, debates have waged about “crisis standards of care” (“CSC”)—the guidelines for the allocation of resources if those resources are too scarce to meet the needs of all patients. The Hastings Center Report's September-October 2021 issue features a collection of pieces on this debate. In the lead article, MaryKatherine Gaurke and colleagues object to the idea that the allocation of scarce resources should aim to save the most “life-years,” arguing instead that the objective should be to save the most lives. Gaurke et al. assert that it is only theorists who have favored the life-years strategy; the public has not—or at least, there is no good evidence that the public has. This claim is elaborated in the article by Alex Rajczi and colleagues, who argue that identifying and applying the public's will—a process they call “political reasoning”—is the core work in developing CSC. Five commentaries—two coauthored, by Douglas B. White and Bernardo Lo and by Anuj B. Mehta and Matthew K. Wynia, and three solo authored, by Govind Persad, Virginia A. Brown, and Robert D. Truog—offer further arguments about and insights into CSC.

中文翻译：

---

护理标准的危机

自 Covid-19 大流行开始以来，关于“危机护理标准”（“CSC”）——如果这些资源太稀缺而无法满足所有患者的需求的资源分配指南，就一直存在争论。在黑斯廷斯中心报告的九月至2021年10月发布展示了这场辩论件的集合。在主要文章中，MaryKatherine Gaurke 及其同事反对稀缺资源的分配应以挽救最多“生命年”为目标的观点，而是认为目标应该是挽救最多的生命。高克等人。断言只有理论家支持生命年策略；公众没有——或者至少，没有很好的证据表明公众有。Alex Rajczi 及其同事在文章中详细阐述了这一主张，他们认为识别和应用公众的意愿——他们称之为“政治推理”的过程——是发展 CSC 的核心工作。五篇评论——其中两篇由 Douglas B. White 和 Bernardo Lo 以及 Anuj B. Mehta 和 Matthew K. Wynia 合着，三篇由 Govind Persad、Virginia A. Brown 和 Robert D. Truog 单独撰写——提供了关于以及对 CSC 的见解。