Question: How can companies make decisions about scarce resources?

Answer passage (source: WHO):
page_title: Q&A: Ethics and COVID-19: resource allocation and priority setting
section_headers: What conclusions can we draw about the fair allocation of scarce resources within countries during the COVID-19 outbreak?
section_content: 
Health care workers (caring for patients) and first responders can justifiably be prioritized when allocating some resources because of their contribution to the health and well-being of the community. Their health helps preserve the health of others.
Participants of research aimed at developing vaccines, therapies or other critical resources should receive some priority in receiving those resources because they have also helped save others by their participation. This is not an absolute priority – for example, it should not take precedence over giving priority to those most at risk in the case of resources such as vaccines.
While the principle of first come, first served is often applied when allocating resources in health care settings, it is rarely appropriate in an emergency. In practice, it is very likely to favour certain groups, such as those closest to a distribution centre, those with access to better information, or those who are most well-off.
Younger populations appear to be at lower risk in the COVID-19 context. Consequently, the principle of youngest first should have low priority for vaccine, but perhaps may have more weight if they do become sick and need critical care resources.
The allocation of different resources may find ethical justification in different principles or values. For instance, if a novel vaccine is found to be safe and effective, a lottery-based allocation may be justified among those as highest risk, the old and those with co-morbidities, if they outnumber available vaccines.
Maximizing utility should be balanced with the principle of priority to the worst-off: centralizing the availability of resources in larger centres may extend their benefits to more people, but may exclude isolated populations and challenge our concern for those at highest risk.


Reviewer feedback on this answer:
Lists criteria for how to decide where to allocate scarce resources during a pandemic.
These bullet points are each very detailed and talk about the priority when it comes to allocating medical resources for COVID. I think this does a great job answering the question

Reviewer ratings:
Excellent
Excellent

Answer passage (source: WHO):
page_title: Q&A: Ethics and COVID-19: resource allocation and priority setting
section_headers: How should decision-makers make considered ethical judgements about these matters, given the likelihood that there will not be enough of a resource? Who should be involved in decision-making on scarce resources?
section_content: For most decisions, multiple ethical values and principles will be relevant to
deliberations about how to allocate resources. This is likely to generate some
disagreement, because different people may weigh the values differently. Some
may prioritize equality while others might put more emphasis on best outcomes
or prioritization of the worst-off. For this reason, it is imperative that the
different values be weighed and applied to specific allocation issues using a
fair process.
A fair process for allocating scarce resources must promote certain ethical
values:

Transparency. In a transparent process, the decisions and their justifications should be made public. This means that the population should be informed about the criteria guiding the decisions.
Inclusiveness. Those affected by allocation decisions – including individuals, communities or countries – should be able to exert at least some influence over the decision-making process as well as the decision itself. This also means that decisions 4 should be open to challenge and potentially revisable, perhaps through an appeal process. 
Consistency. Decisions should be consistent so that all persons in the same categories are treated in the same way. This means that favouritism towards one’s own family, religious or political compatriots, or otherwise, is not appropriate. All forms of corruption that are at variance with this principle should be challenged and condemned. 
Accountability. Those making decisions about allocation must be accountable for those decisions – that is, they should justify their decisions and be held responsible for them. A fair process means that allocation decisions should not be made by individuals, by individual pharmaceutical companies, or, in the case of allocation between countries, by a single country. Resources such as vaccines and therapies should not be stockpiled outside the system of fair allocation.

The fair allocation of resources is one that is valuable in itself precisely
because it is fair. However, it may also be valuable because a fair system
engenders solidarity and trust, which are vital to the successful and
sustained collective response necessary for dealing effectively with any
outbreak.

Reviewer feedback on this answer:
Lists principles that should be taken into account when allocating scarce resources.
This response does a really good job answering the question as far as what things you should consider when trying to make these ethical decisions. It gives a good perspective on what is important

Reviewer ratings:
Excellent
Acceptable

Answer passage (source: WHO):
page_title: Q&A: Ethics and COVID-19: resource allocation and priority setting
section_headers: What is the basis for deciding who should have priority access to scarce resources?
section_content: The ethical basis for deciding which individuals or groups might be
prioritized, including the principles to be applied, are presented in the
below table:
Ethical considerations when deciding who to prioritize
Principle|  Description|  Practice implication
---|---|---
Equality|
Each person’s interest should count equally unless there are good reasons that
justify the differential prioritization of resources.
Irrelevant characteristics of individuals, such as race, ethnicity, creed,
ability or gender, should not serve arbitrarily as the basis for the
differential allocation of resources.
This principle can be used to justify the allocation of resources by a lottery
– that is, randomly by chance – or by a system of first come, first served.
|
May be most appropriate to guide the allocation of scarce resources among
individuals or populations who can be expected to derive the same benefit from
the resource, for example, vaccines among high-risk populations, or
ventilators among those with similar clinical indicators for benefit.  
Best outcomes (utility)|
This principle can be used to justify the allocation of resources according to
their capacity to do the most good or minimize the most harm, for example,
using available resources to save the most lives possible.
|
May be most appropriate to guide the allocation of scarce resources that
confer substantially different benefits to different individuals, for example,
ventilators to those expected to derive the most benefit.  
Prioritize the worst off|
This principle can be used to justify the allocation of resources to those in
greatest medical need or those most at risk.
|
May be most appropriate to guide the allocation of resources that are designed
or intended to protect those at risk, for example, PPE for health care
workers, vaccines for those most at risk of infection and severe illness, or
those most in need, as in the case of provision of drugs in short supply to
those needing them most urgently.  
Prioritize those tasked with helping others
|
This principle can be used to justify the allocation of resources to those who
have certain skills or talents that can save many other people, or because
something is owed to them on account of their participation in helping others.
|
May be most appropriate to guide the allocation of resources to health care
workers, first responders, etc.  
Allocation principles may be relevant or justified at different stages of
resource scarcity (from less scarcity to more scarcity). For example, where
little scarcity exists, the allocation of resources such as ventilators may be
most justified by the principle of first come, first served (which promotes
the value of equality). When those resources become increasingly scarce, their
allocation may be justified according to a principle that prioritizes those
most in need. With even greater scarcity, a principle that aims to maximize
benefit from the resource may be most justified. At each stage, allocation
should aim to promote equality – that is, first come, first served, or random
allocation, when no relevant factors distinguish individuals within a
particular scheme of allocation (for example, among those with similar needs,
or among those who can be expected to benefit similarly from the resources, or
among those that are at similar levels of risk).
In addition, multiple principles may be combined within an allocation scheme.
For example, an allocation scheme for PPE might find its justification in a
principle prioritizing those most at risk as well as a principle prioritizing
those tasked with helping others, which would support priority allocation of
PPE to health care workers.

Reviewer feedback on this answer:
Gives a detailed analysis of how scarce resources should be allocated, with a focus on drugs and PPE.
This seems like a pretty on point response to the question. The scarce resource decision is an ethical one and this goes in depth on the considerations to make with that

Reviewer ratings:
Excellent
Excellent