Who do we treat when resources are scarce?

In a health service with limited resources we must make decisions about who to treat ?rst. In this paper I develop a version of the restoration argument according to which those whose need for resources is a consequence of their voluntary choices should receive lower priority when it comes to health care. I then consider three possible problems for this argument based on those that have been raised against other theories of this type: that we don’t know in a particular case that the illness is self-in?icted, that it seems that all illness is self-in?icted in the sense used in my argument, and ?nally that this type of approach incorporates an unacceptable moralising element if it is to avoid giving those like ?re-?ghters a lower priority for treatment. I argue that the position outlined here has the resources to respond to each of these objections.