COVID-19 vaccination status should not be used in triage tie-breaking.

This article discusses the triage response to the COVID-19 delta variant surge of 2021. One issue that distinguishes the delta wave from earlier surges is that by the time it became the predominant strain in the USA in July 2021, safe and effective vaccines against COVID-19 had been available for all US adults for several months. We consider whether healthcare professionals and triage committees would have been justified in prioritising patients with COVID-19 who are vaccinated above those who are unvaccinated in first-order or second-order triage. Given that lack of evidence for a correlation between short-term survival and vaccination, we argue that using vaccination status during first-order triage would be inconsistent with accepted triage standards. We then turn to notions of procedural fairness, equity and desert to argue that that there is also a lack of justification for using vaccination status in second-order triage. In planning for future surges, we recommend that medical institutions base their triage decisions on principles meant to save the most lives, minimise inequity and protect the public's trust, which for the time being would not be served by the inclusion of vaccination status.

Caring for Unvaccinated Patients in the ICU: Beyond Frustration, Toward Beneficial Relationships.

Critical care professionals in the United States are experiencing distress and frustration during the recent delta-wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This wave feels different because most, although not all, patients suffering with the sequelae from coronavirus disease 2019 who enter ICUs are unvaccinated. Since vaccines in the United States are safe, effective, and widely available for people 12 and older, severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 are now considered preventable. However, even when a disease is preventable, critical care professionals still have remaining role-based, ethical obligations to their patients. Developing additional mechanisms for reflection and resilience, in spite of accumulated frustrations from otherwise preventable mortality, may help the professional and those they care for. In this essay, we propose a number of questions that recognize the existential frustrations critical care professionals experience, while also uncovering the ethical obligations that remain. Rather than becoming comfortable with silence or frustration, these reflections intend to bridge the gap between feeling frustrated and building relationships that benefit both the patient and the critical care professional during this pandemic.

Between Crisis and Convention: How Should We Address Contingency?

The Covid-19 pandemic has brought about renewed conversation about equality and equity in the distribution of medical resources. Much of the recent conversation has focused on creating and implementing policies in times of crisis when resources are exhausted. Depending on how the pandemic develops, some communities may implement crisis measures, but many health care facilities are currently experiencing shortages of staff and materials even if the facilities have not implemented crisis standards. There is a need for shared conversation about equality and equity in these times of contingency between conventional and crisis medicine. To respond well to these challenges, I recommend that institutions rely on policy, professional education, and ethics consultation. As is the case with crisis policies, creating contingency policies requires that health care professionals decide on how, specifically, to achieve equity. A policy is only as effective as its implementation; therefore, institutions should invest in context-specific education on contingency policies. Finally, ethics consultation should be available for questions that contingency policies cannot address.