Shallow Dives

Welcome to Shallow Dives, your daily destination for bite-sized learning. Every day, we publish a new article designed to make you an "instant expert" on fascinating topics across science, humanities, and beyond. Transform your idle minutes into moments of discovery.

The Reverse Triage Paradox: Why Doctors Sometimes Ignore the Worst Injured First

Topic: Ethics (applied) Read time: 3 min Published: February 2, 2026

The Reverse Triage Paradox: Why Doctors Sometimes Ignore the Worst Injured First

Imagine arriving at a disaster scene as a doctor. Before you: someone bleeding out who might die without immediate help, and someone with serious but stabilizable injuries. Every instinct tells you to save the dying person first. Yet disaster medicine ethics might demand you do the opposite—walk past the critical patient to treat the moderate one. Welcome to the reverse triage paradox, where traditional medical ethics collide with resource scarcity.

The Framework: When Normal Ethics Break Down

In everyday medicine, physicians follow the principle of "rescue the perishing"—the sickest patient gets priority. But this assumes adequate resources: enough doctors, equipment, and time. Mass casualty incidents shatter this assumption. When a building collapses, a bombing occurs, or a pandemic overwhelms hospitals, the ethical calculus changes fundamentally.

Triage—from the French "trier" (to sort)—emerged during Napoleonic wars when battlefield surgeon Dominique Jean Larrey developed a system for prioritizing wounded soldiers. Modern disaster triage uses color-coded categories: red (critical), yellow (serious but stable), green (minor), and black (expectant/deceased). The controversial part? In true mass casualty events with collapsed resources, medical teams may implement "reverse triage," treating yellow before red.

The ethical reasoning draws from utilitarianism: maximize lives saved and years of life gained with limited resources. A patient requiring two hours of complex surgery with 30% survival odds might consume resources that could save five patients with 90% survival odds in the same timeframe. The math is brutal but clear—spend resources where they produce the most survival.

The Real-World Test: COVID-19 Triage Protocols

This wasn't theoretical in 2020. When Italian hospitals faced overwhelming COVID-19 cases, physicians implemented triage protocols that prioritized patients with better survival chances. Doctors reported the psychological toll of denying ventilators to elderly patients to save younger ones—decisions that violated their training to "do no harm" to individuals but aligned with maximizing overall survival.

Similarly, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting forced trauma surgeons to triage 500+ casualties. Those with immediately survivable injuries received priority over both minor wounds and likely fatal injuries. Studies afterward showed this approach saved an estimated 30-40 additional lives compared to traditional triage, but left providers with lasting moral injury from the patients they couldn't help.

Key Takeaways: Ethics Under Pressure

First, applied ethics isn't about universal principles but context-dependent frameworks. What's right with abundant resources differs from what's right when systems collapse. This applies beyond medicine—to pandemic responses, climate adaptation, and AI resource allocation.

Second, ethical frameworks have psychological costs. Following utilitarian logic in triage situations creates moral distress even when it's the "correct" choice mathematically. Recognition and support for decision-makers matters.

Third, the "dinner party version": ethics isn't just philosophical—it's practical decision-making under constraints. When facing difficult choices with limited resources, asking "what saves the most good overall?" sometimes demands counterintuitive actions that feel wrong individually but serve collective welfare.

Where This Leads

Next time you face resource allocation decisions—budget cuts, hiring choices, time management—you're engaging applied ethics. The question isn't just "what's fair?" but "fair according to which framework, given these constraints?" Disaster triage reveals ethics at its most stark, but the underlying tension appears everywhere: when doing maximum good requires choices that feel individually wrong, how do we decide?

References

  • Larrey, D.J. (1812). "Memoirs of Military Surgery and Campaigns of the French Armies"
  • Schultz, C.H., et al. (2020). "Disaster Triage: START, then SAVE—A New Method of Dynamic Triage for Victims of a Catastrophic Earthquake." Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
  • Vergano, M., et al. (2020). "Clinical Ethics Recommendations for the Allocation of Intensive Care Treatments in Exceptional, Resource-Limited Circumstances." Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
  • Hupert, N., et al. (2007). "Disaster Triage and Allocation of Scarce Resources." In Koenig and Schultz, Disaster Medicine (Cambridge University Press)

Further Reading