Analysis of the 19-page recommendation by the national advisory Belgian Committee on Bio-Ethics, entitled "Prioritization of care in times of COVID-19", published Dec 21. The Committee says these are ethical considerations, not practical directives. But it adds that physicians must take difficult ethical decisions. The latter are the selections of a limited number of patients for therapy in case the capacity of hospitals or intensive care units is exceeded, including the transfer to other hospitals. This selection should be made by a team preferably including a physician unrelated to the patient. The team spreads the moral burden of such heavy decisions over several shoulders (collegiality), the Committee writes. There is no general consensus on which basis the selection should be made. Age alone may not be used, but the "frailty" of the patient, and the prognosis, are elements. Also the "early planning of care" document, registered at admission, signed by the patient or family, can specify that hospital treatment is not preferred; this choice should be respected. I wonder whether every patient has received full information about the consequences in case most advanced therapeutic interventions are denied, yes of no. Also, the probability of cure is unknown in individual patients, since statistics of groups give averages only; moreover results depend on the therapies applied. The Committee does not specify who should decide whether services are "saturated"; the latter impression is widespread at the peaks of infections, although many procedures can overcome this: increasing the number of beds and apparatus, calling upon the Army health services, upon students and retired personnel, transfer of patients to hospitals abroad, the diverse lock-down measures , and vaccination. However, in practice, when residents of old age homes become ill, they most often are not hospitalized and die under palliative care. It is my moral view that pro-active measures in order to fully treat all patients, should be preferred over ...