The COVID-19 pandemic and the unprecedented natural disasters of 2020 remind us of the importance of emergency preparedness. This Article contributes to our legal and ethical readiness by examining state “Crisis Standards of Care,” which are the standards that determine how medical resources are allocated in times of scarcity. The Article identifies a flaw in the policy choice at the heart of the standards: the standards focus on saving as many lives as possible but, in so doing, will predictably disadvantage the ability of people with disabilities and racial minorities to access life-saving care. To date, scholarly attention has focused on explicit exclusions of people with particular medical conditions or the standards’ failure to be sufficiently individualized. Amending the protocols to address these concerns, while important, will simply tinker at the margins. The more consequential and harder question is how states should balance the demand to save as many lives as possible while also ensuring that people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups are treated fairly. To answer that question, this Article distills and analyzes four rationing principles that animate the state standards and contends that none ultimately balances these two important aims in a manner consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the moral commitments on which it rests. It thus provides a moral and legal framework to guide the ongoing revision of the standards. The Article concludes by proposing a novel, alternative rationing system that reserves resources to accommodate both efficiency and equity, thereby better instantiating the balance that undergirds the ADA.
Who has the legal right to challenge decisions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration? And should the moral umbrage of a group of anti-abortion...
President Joe Biden promised during his State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, that he would make the right to get an abortion a federal law.
“If...
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...
There is a live debate going on over whether antitrust should take a broader view of the economics of market concentration. When antitrust reformers...
Hot Flash: How Understanding Menopause Can Improve Life and Law for Everyone dissolves the silence and stigma surrounding menopause. The book frames...
During times of crisis, governments often consider policies that may promote safety, but that would require overstepping constitutionally protected...
This essay explores the regulation of sperm donation from a reproductive justice perspective. It compares formal sperm donation, which involves...
The SEC mandates that public companies assess new information that changes the risks that they face and disclose these if there has been a “material”...
Over the past twenty-five years, Congress has enacted several major reforms for employer-sponsored retirement plans and individual retirement accounts...
In the aftermath of Dobbs, as barriers to accessing fertility care increase, one area of growing interest is informal (“DIY”) sperm donation, which...
Medication abortion now accounts for more than half of all abortions in the United States. Typically, patients take a two different pills: first...
Now that the Supreme Court has revoked the constitutional right to reproductive autonomy, we must reckon with the risks that our surveillance economy...
In their intriguing article “Bioethics and the Moral Authority of Experience,” Nelson and colleagues (2023) provide important insight into an...
Over the last thirty years, almost every time I stepped out of my narrow academic path to do something that, I hoped, was for the greater public good...