Why is an age limit an ethically problematic form of explicit rationing, and how can the veil of ignorance be used to justify it?

An age limit would stop life-prolonging treatment beyond a certain age and offer only comfort care such as pain relief. Its defenders argue it is not age discrimination because everyone grows old, and that behind Rawls' veil of ignorance people would prefer full coverage in their early years when the budget is tight.

The proposal: above a certain age, no more life-prolonging services, only comfort-stabilising care, e.g. pain therapy.

Arguments for it:

• No age discrimination, because unlike sex or ethnicity, age is a stage that everyone passes through. The rule treats every life the same over its whole course.
• Veil of ignorance (John Rawls): imagine choosing the rules of a health system without knowing who you will be, how old, how healthy or how rich. With a limited budget, a rational person might prefer to be well covered in their early and middle years rather than in very old age.

Why it stays problematic: it is a blanket rule that ignores the individual patient's need and expected benefit, and it explicitly values some lives' remaining years less than others. That is why it is named as an ethically problematic form of explicit rationing.

Go deeper:

• SRF Filosofix: Was ist gerecht? Schleier des Nichtwissens (German) — short animated explainer of the thought experiment.
• Wikipedia: Original position — Rawls' veil of ignorance in detail.