The Rule of Rescue: An investigation into age-related preferences and the imperative to save a life

Abstract

The dominant rule of economic evaluation within health care posits that resources are distributed in order to maximize health benefit. There are instances, however, where the public has demonstrated that they do not prefer such an allocation scheme, particularly in the context of life-saving interventions.

Objectives

Deviations from preferences of maximizing health benefit have important implications on both financial and distributive levels. This study sought to specify the circumstances in which respondent preferences are inconsistent with maximizing health benefit.

Methods

Ninety respondents recruited from the London School of Economics and Political Science completed a questionnaire comprised of a series of paired profiles involving various combinations of life-saving or quality-of-life enhancing interventions.

Results

The results indicate that saving a life holds value beyond that captured by traditional health benefit measurement and that the value of saving a life is not consistent across ages. More specifically, the value of saving a life was age-dependent and markedly attenuated for older-age patients.

Conclusions

Many respondents were willing to overlook maximizing health benefit in order to rescue a life in immediate peril, and showed a diminished sense of moral imperative to rescue older-age patients. In light of difficulties related to the implementation of larger-scale policies incorporating Rule of Rescue concerns, the most realistic approaches will likely involve adopting smaller-scale policies that address issues such as do not resuscitate (DNRs) and living wills. Potential policy solutions such as age or monetary thresholds for life-saving interventions may be favoured in a research context; however, their overall social feasibility is questionable.