This paper examines the ethical and policy dimensions of healthcare resource allocation for the elderly in America. Drawing on arguments from bioethics scholars and health policy analysts, it considers how factors such as age-based discrimination, patient autonomy, and economic rationale intersect when distributing scarce medical resources—including ICU beds and end-of-life care. The paper argues that resources should be allocated on a case-by-case basis, guided by individual patient goals and objective clinical information rather than age alone. It also addresses the moral obligation society owes to elderly members who have already contributed to the world, ultimately calling for flexible, communication-centered policies that respect the diverse needs of an aging population.
The paper effectively employs the concede-and-counter technique: it acknowledges the economic logic behind rationing arguments before dismantling them with a moral counterargument about social obligation to the elderly. This structure strengthens the author's position by showing awareness of the strongest opposing case.
The essay opens with a broad societal framing, narrows to the specific ICU allocation debate with empirical support, then widens again to legislative and economic policy arguments. It concludes with a synthesizing recommendation. This funnel-and-widen structure is appropriate for a short policy ethics essay at the undergraduate level.
Growing old is an undeniable aspect of life for all human beings. However, America has repeatedly been accused of being a nation that does not care adequately for its elderly population, instead focusing eternally on the young. In order to be a more humane and sensitive society, one could argue that we need to focus on our most vulnerable populations — and the elderly constitute a large portion of that group. One way to treat the elderly in a more humane and dignified manner would be to re-evaluate how society allocates resources, so that elderly individuals are more likely to receive the goods, services, and medications they need.
The question of healthcare resource allocation is not simply a logistical one; it is deeply moral. Any policy framework must grapple with competing values: economic efficiency, individual dignity, social obligation, and respect for patient autonomy.
When it comes to more controversial resources — such as ICU beds — allocation can fall into a gray area. To assign an ICU bed to one patient over another based solely on age could be considered a form of discrimination. Therefore, other factors must be involved when making just and moral allocation decisions. As one expert argues, the allocation of resources to the elderly should be based on a case-by-case approach, using objective information as a primary source and grounding decisions in the best interest of the patient (Brock & Wikler, 2013).
In one particular study, a notable proportion of elderly patients — 25% — expressed that they did not want to receive resuscitation (Brock & Wikler, 2013). To allocate resources to these patients based solely on their age would show flagrant disregard for their wishes and would ultimately amount to a waste of resources. This finding lends support to the necessity of allocating resources to the elderly on a case-by-case basis, particularly when it comes to intensive medical interventions. Respecting patient autonomy and ethical research principles is central to any defensible allocation framework.
Those who oppose directing substantial resources toward the elderly often use economics and logic as the foundation of their argument. As one scholar summarizes: "Implicit in this argument is the principle that elderly healthcare represents an investment of scarce resources with limited returns. In addition, this argument reflects an intuitive conclusion that an older person has less chance of achieving a successful clinical outcome" (Smith, 2002). The crux of this position rests on an assertion of fact: vast resources are spent on care for the dying elderly, and there is clear empirical evidence to support that claim (Smith, 2002).
You’re 51% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.