Covid Treatment Lottery

“For patients with similar prognosis, who cannot be separated in other ways, a random allocation, such as a lottery, may be used”, says the protocol.

So says a Report in the Daily Telegraph (UK) of 5th January by Paul Nuki titled “Covid ‘lottery’: Doctors draw up triage protocol in the event treatment has to be rationed” (Telegraph usually paywalled, but this seems open-access)

It refers to a paper in J Medical Ethics “Development of a structured process for fair allocation of critical care resources in the setting of insufficient capacity: a discussion paper” also accessible f.o.c.

This is circulating in NHS hospitals as a proposed protocol.

The protocol – drafted by medical, legal and palliative care specialists at the Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust – is the most sophisticated attempt yet to devise an ethical system for rationing care in the event that there are insufficient resources to treat everyone.

Now this is exciting! But it is not new. Right from the start of organ transplantation (1960s) such moralistic contentions were weighed up.

In Seattle the so-called ‘God committee’ was set up to make these difficult choices (reported in Calabresi & Bobbit (1978) Tragic Choices). The committee eventually found that it was too agonising to make these choices, and passed the task back to the medical practitioners. In the end it was felt that only medical  factors should be taken into account. Even if no overt rules on social merit were in place, we should not be surprised if the doctor, genuinely uncertain on medical grounds,  was to pick the ‘nicer’ of the two patients.

A secret lottery?

Elster (1989) in his masterly ‘Solomonic Choices’ gives the example of child custody cases, where the judge is frequently unable (in his own mind) to give a clear-cut decision. Yet decide he must, so he goes ahead, dressing up the verdict with trappings of rationality.

This, claims Elster, satisfies both parties, the winner praising the wisdom of the judge, the loser cursing his bias. No doubt a similar process might go on when a medical doctor decides, even if partly randomly and in secret, between her two patients: So long as both patients believe that their case is decided clinically by an expert, then both winner and loser may find it acceptable.

The doctor herself may even be a bit cognitively dissonant—convincing herself that she is doing the right thing for the right reason, exercising judgement based on intuition  rather than validated knowledge. This form of fudging may be acceptable all round, but it is fraught with dangers.

If fakery is suspected, patients rapidly lose their trust in their professionals. Unwitting discrimination seems inevitable. True expertise will fail to develop unless its limits are acknowledged.

Against a lottery is Greely (1977) who suggests that if recipients can argue about any allocation, they feel more satisfied. Anand was also interested in what is called ‘voice’—that one of the reasons a coin-toss was thought to be unfair is that it deprived customers of a say in the decision.

In favour of a visible act of coin-tossing Calabresi & Bobbit explain that it draws attention to the fact that resources are limited. Edgeworth (1888) suggested another benefit would be that the public, seeing a random drawing take place, would be alerted to the ‘aleatory nature’ of the decision. Bureaucrats might not like having such attention focussed on this shortage of resources and their uncertain knowledge.

[This was part of my 2006 thesis Who Gets The Prize. It can be viewed in full on my website]

2 Responses

  1. Part of Plato’s eugenics scheme in The Republic (as his book proposing an authoritarian indoctrinationist anti-art anti-poetry dictatorship of philosophers is called) is a fraudulent lottery used to allocate partners for reproduction. (People are to be led to believe it is by lottery, but really selection is to be made on a eugenics basis, as is the case with the breeding of farm animals.)

    Here’s a little anecdote from when I was in law school. One summer the law professor in charge of hiring law students for the summer at a legal clinic said she had decided between several students who applied (I don’t remember how many but at least two) by drawing their names from a hat. One of the students not chosen believed this was fraudulent (the hat drawing took place without witnesses).

    I believe it is not unusual for courses with too many students to have a lottery with those losing the lottery having to take some other course. If a ranked choice system is in place, it would be the next choice on their list. (If memory serves this was used at the law school I went to.) This was also done when I was in grade 7 or so when too many students chose to take the instrumental music course rather than the singing course (a sort of lottery was used, or a least a form of random selection, with every 5th student who went to the instrumental class being bumped to the singing class).

    I don’t recall anyone claiming the lottery re the allocation of law school courses with too many students, nor the quasi-lottery in the music class, was unfair or that there was some better way to do it.


  2. *** Recently in France the use of lottery to allocate entries to some kinds of University studies seemed to meet strong public opinion opposition (whereas French public opinion is open enough to the political use of minipopulus).
    *** The root of this opposition seems the idea that there must be better ways of choice, rational ones.
    *** I think that a number of people, at least in France, are open to the idea “better lottery than intuitive, subjective choice (or spurious requirements)” but think “better clear rational choice than lottery”.
    *** Let’s consider the hypothetical case of entry to medicine studies with too many able candidates, we have to choose. Lottery is one of the solutions. But there are other ones. For instance taking students who accept to work some years in some medically understaffed territories (or countries), in the beginning.
    *** I am afraid that the use of lot when there are rational ways could move the public opinion to a general estrangement from lottery, possibly turning it away from the political use of sortition.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: