Abstract

When a number of people will die without a particular medical resource that cannot possibly be provided for all, upon what basis should recipients of the resource be determined? After accepting and circumscribing the right to life and an equality-and-need-based conception of justice, the author defends a just policy as one involving random selection from among those medically qualified, but with a special priority for those facing imminent death. Possible moral exceptions to justice are then examined, five (including life expectancy and social merit) being rejected and three (voluntary sacrifice, disproportionate resources, and unique moral duties) being accepted.