Why the fair innings argument is not persuasive

The fair innings argument (FIA) is frequently put forward as a justification for denying elderly patients treatment when they are in competition with younger patients and resources are scarce. In this paper I will examine some arguments that are used to support the FIA. My conclusion will be that they do not stand up to scrutiny and therefore, the FIA should not be used to justify the denial of treatment to elderly patients, or to support rationing of health care by age.

Motion perception: seeing and deciding.

The primate visual system offers unprecedented opportunities for investigating the neural basis of cognition. Even the simplest visual discrimination task requires processing of sensory signals, formation of a decision, and orchestration of a motor response. With our extensive knowledge of the primate visual and oculomotor systems as a base, it is now possible to investigate the neural basis of simple visual decisions that link sensation to action. Here we describe an initial study of neural responses in the lateral intraparietal area (LIP) of the cerebral cortex while alert monkeys discriminated the direction of motion in a visual display. A subset of LIP neurons carried high-level signals that may comprise a neural correlate of the decision process in our task. These signals are neither sensory nor motor in the strictest sense; rather they appear to reflect integration of sensory signals toward a decision appropriate for guiding movement. If this ultimately proves to be the case, several fascinating issues in cognitive neuroscience will be brought under rigorous physiological scrutiny.