In this paper, we show that key decision-makers and the constituents they serve are systematically biased against disadvantaged groups in the allocation of life-saving medical equipment. To do so, we conduct one of the largest conjoint experiments to date on (a) a large sample of elected officials at various levels of government and on (b) a large random sample of the public. Our results show that in the midst of a crisis and dire shortages of life-saving equipment, individuals will use their individual biases as a heuristic for who is more deserving of survival.