What does Shaw say about ageism with respect to healthcare rationing?

Shaw considers the objection that seniors are especially wise and this is just as valuable as the

economic contribution younger people can make. He replies by saying that wisdom is not as valuable as economic contribution when rationing is at issue.

Shaw argues that ageism in

health care is a form of discrimination against seniors but that it is permissible because younger

people benefit more from treatment.

Shaw replies to

the objection that it unfair to allocate medical resources on the basis of an

ageist policy because the correlation between biological age and chronological age is

imperfect. What does he say?

Shaw replies to the objection that it would be unfair to

withhold treatment from an older person, if that person’s total contribution to

society is larger than a younger person’s.  What does he say?

Shaw replies to the

objection that the ageism he advocates overlooks quality of life considerations. What does he say?

Menzel argues that

experimental development does not justify multiple organ transplants

because we

have no reason to think that there will be enough organs in the future

for

multiple organ transplants not to sacrifice more than one person in

order to

save just one.

Menzel responds to the

objection that multiple organ transplants are permissible because

everyone

deserves an equal chance at being saved. What he says in response is that this objection

works only if we have reason to expect that, in the future, multiple

organ transplants will result in more lives saved.

How does Menzel reply to

the objection that, by sincerely participating in a luck-infused system,

patients implicitly consent to having

one person saved when several could have been saved instead?

How does Menzel

reply to the objection that