Refusal of transplant organs for non-medical reasons including COVID-19 status

Transplant centers and physicians in the United States have limited guidance on the information which they can and cannot provide to transplant candidates regarding donors of potential organs. Patients may refuse organs for a variety of reasons ranging from pernicious requests including racism to misinformation about emerging medicine as with the COVID-19 vaccine and infection. Patient autonomy, organ stewardship, and equity are often at odds in these cases, but precedent indeed exists to help address these challenges. This work uses such cases to highlight the urgent need for uniform, national policy prohibiting informational requests unrelated to well-established risks. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Clinical Ethics is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Clinician Perspectives for Mental Health Delivery Following COVID-19 in Carceral Settings: A Pilot Study.

We aimed to understand clinician perspectives on mental healthcare delivery during COVID-19 and the utility of tele-mental health services in carceral settings. A survey was administered in November 2022 through the American College of Correctional Physicians listserv. A nationwide sample of 55 respondents included 78.2% male (n = 43) and 21.8% female (n = 12), 49.1% active clinicians (n = 27) and 50.9% medical directors (n = 28), with a median of 12 and mean of 14.5 years working in carceral settings. Most agreed that mental telehealth services could serve as a stopgap amid infection prevention measures and resource-limited settings with an increasing role moving forward (80.0%, n = 44) but may not be sufficient to replace in-person services completely. Access to mental healthcare is vital in helping achieve optimal health during incarceration. Most clinicians in a nationwide survey report an essential role of mental telehealth in the future, although they vary in beliefs on the present implementation. Future efforts should further identify facilitators and barriers and bolster delivery models, particularly via e-health.

Research Ethics during Pandemics: How IRBs Can Prepare.

The Covid-19 pandemic has raised a range of complex challenges for the research community in the United States. This essay uses Covid-19 as a model pandemic illness to consider two such issues that have yet to be fully explored in the ethics literature: first, whether the informed consent process should include a discussion of pandemic risks and, if so, how precisely these risks should be conveyed to potential research participants and, second, whether and under what circumstances vaccination status should be taken into consideration when enrolling subjects in non-pandemic-related studies during a pandemic.

Refusal of transplant organs for non-medical reasons including COVID-19 status

Transplant centers and physicians in the United States have limited guidance on the information which they can and cannot provide to transplant candidates regarding donors of potential organs. Patients may refuse organs for a variety of reasons ranging from pernicious requests including racism to misinformation about emerging medicine as with the COVID-19 vaccine and infection. Patient autonomy, organ stewardship, and equity are often at odds in these cases, but precedent indeed exists to help address these challenges. This work uses such cases to highlight the urgent need for uniform, national policy prohibiting informational requests unrelated to well-established risks.

If it ducks like a quack: balancing physician freedom of expression and the public interest.

Physicians expressing opinions on medical matters that run contrary to the consensus of experts pose a challenge to licensing bodies and regulatory authorities. While the right to express contrarian views feeds a robust marketplace of ideas that is essential for scientific progress, physicians advocating ineffective or dangerous cures, or actively opposing public health measures, pose a grave threat to societal welfare. Increasingly, a distinction has been made between professional speech that occurs during the physician-patient encounter and public speech that transpires beyond the clinical setting, with physicians being afforded wide latitude to voice empirically false claims outside the context of patient care. This paper argues that such a bifurcated model does not sufficiently address the challenges of an age when mass communications and social media allow dissenting physicians to offer misleading medical advice to the general public on a mass scale. Instead, a three-tiered model that distinguishes between citizen speech, physician speech and clinical speech would best serve authorities when regulating physician expression.

Do Hospital Leaders Live in the Communities They Serve? A Comparative Analysis.

Purpose: Many factors contribute to persistent intractable disparities in health care, but the geographic separation of health care executives and patient communities has not been explored. From Congresspeople to police officers, individuals engaged in public service often face criticism for not living in the neighborhoods where they work. These critiques stem from the belief that to engage meaningfully with a community, one has to understand its experiences and share its interests-and geographic proximity offers one opportunity to bridge such divides. This article seeks to determine whether the senior executive leadership of American hospitals live in the same communities as their patient populations. Methods: From August 2020 to January 2021, the research team identified the leadership of the "largest" and "best" hospitals in the United States (n=68). Public directories were used to locate residential addresses. Newly released U.S. Census data provided proportions of individuals identifying as black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx in each zip code. Respective demographic proportions of hospital communities and hospital leadership residence were compared. Results: Hospitals shared the same zip codes with only three health system leaders (4.41%), seven hospital leaders (10.45%), and six deans (10.91%) of respective institutions. Hospital leadership lived in zip codes with a significantly lower proportion of black/African American (p<0.0009) and Hispanic/Latinx (p<0.0036) residents than their hospital communities. Conclusion: This article reveals significant differences between where health care leaders live and where they work. Future research should investigate the impact of residential disparities and the consequences of potential remedies on health equity.

Personal responsibility and transplant revisited: A case for assigning lower priority to American vaccine refusers.

Priority for solid organ transplant generally does not consider the underlying cause of the need for transplantation. This paper argues that a distinctive set of factors justify assigning lower priority to willfully unvaccinated individuals who require transplant as a result of suffering from COVID-19. These factors include the personal responsibility of the patients for their own condition and the public outrage likely to ensue if willfully unvaccinated patients receive organs at the expense of vaccinated ones. The paper then proposes a three-prong test for similar deviations from the current allocation standard that incorporates patient responsibility, foreseeability and avoidability, and the frequency of the occurrence.

Is there a right to a fully vaccinated care team?

Although COVID-19 vaccines are free and readily available in the United States, many healthcare workers remain unvaccinated, potentially exposing their patients to a life-threatening pathogen. This paper reviews the ethical and legal factors surrounding patient requests to limit their care teams exclusively to vaccinated providers. Key factors that shape policy in this area include patient autonomy, the rights of healthcare workers, and the duties of healthcare institutions. Hospitals must also balance the rights of interested parties in the context of logistical constraints, equity, and public health considerations.

The draw of the few: the challenge of crisis guidelines for extremely scarce resources.

The COVID-19 pandemic has focused considerable attention on crisis standards of care (CSCs). Most public CSCs at present are effective tools for allocating scarce but not uncommon resources (like ventilators and dialysis machines). However, a different set of challenges arise with regard to extremely scarce resources (ESRs), where the number of patients in need may exceed the availability of the intervention by magnitudes of hundreds or thousands. Using the allocation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machines as a case study, this paper argues for a different set of CSCs specifically for ESRs and explores four principles (transparency, uniformity, equity and impact) that should shape such guidelines.

When Scarcity Meets Disparity: "Resources Allocation and COVID-19 Patients with Diabetes".

The COVID-19 pandemic raised distinct challenges in the field of scarce resource allocation, a long-standing area of inquiry in the field of bioethics. Policymakers and states developed crisis guidelines for ventilator triage that incorporated such factors as immediate prognosis, long-term life expectancy, and current stage of life. Often these depend upon existing risk factors for severe illness, including diabetes. However, these algorithms generally failed to account for the underlying structural biases, including systematic racism and economic disparity, that rendered some patients more vulnerable to these conditions. This paper discusses this unique ethical challenge in resource allocation through the lens of care for patients with severe COVID-19 and diabetes.

Crisis Standards of Care in the USA: A Systematic Review and Implications for Equity Amidst COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) provide a framework for the fair allocation of scarce resources during emergencies. The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected Black and Latinx populations in the USA. No literature exists comparing state-level CSC. It is unknown how equitably CSC would allocate resources. METHODS: The authors identified all publicly available state-level CSC through online searches and communication with state governments. Publicly available CSC were systematically reviewed for content including ethical framework and prioritization strategy. RESULTS: CSC were identified for 29 states. Ethical principles were explicitly stated in 23 (79.3%). Equity was listed as a guiding ethical principle in 15 (51.7%); 19 (65.5%) said decisions should not factor in race, ethnicity, disability, and other identity-based factors. Ten states (34.4%) allowed for consideration of societal value, which could lead to prioritization of health care workers and other essential personnel. Twenty-one (72.4%) CSC provided a specific strategy for prioritizing patients for critical care resources, e.g., ventilators. All incorporated Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores; 15 (71.4%) of these specific CSC considered comorbid conditions (e.g., cardiac disease, renal failure, malignancy) in resource allocation decisions. CONCLUSION: There is wide variability in the existence and specificity of CSC across the USA. CSC may disproportionately impact disadvantaged populations due to inequities in comorbid condition prevalence, expected lifespan, and other effects of systemic racism.