The Impact of Disability: A Comparative Approach to Medical Resource Allocation in Public Health Emergencies
Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy, Vol: 8, Issue: 2, Page: 259-300
2015
- 1,292Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,292
- Downloads1,262
- 1,262
- Abstract Views30
Article Description
It is a matter of time before the next widespread pandemic or natural disaster hits the United States (U.S.). The international response to the 2009 H1N1 influenza stands as a cautionary tale about how prepared the world is for such an emergency. Although the pandemic fortunately proved to be less severe than initially anticipated, it nevertheless resulted in shortages of medical equipment, overburdened hospitals, and preventable patient deaths, particularly among young people.A pandemic will inevitably lead to difficult decisions about the allocation of medical resources, such as who will have priority access to ventilators and critical care beds when demand exceeds supply. We previously evaluated the protocols public health and medical organizations have promulgated to guide allocation decisions in a public health emergency. We concluded that many of these protocols violate U.S. law and ethics with respect to people with disabilities, because they exclude some people with disabilities from receiving care altogether or because of a need for prolonged use of resources, poor “quality of life,” or limited long-term prognosis.Because the legal and social status of people with disabilities is tied to underlying societal attitudes toward impairments, cultural differences between populations may lead to significantly different distributive outcomes. In this paper, we examine other countries’ approaches to the allocation problem in public health emergencies, both to identify other approaches to these challenging problems and to provide insight into how to develop more equitable policies to guide allocation decisions during a public health emergency in the U.S.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know