Current ethical and social issues in epidemiology.

PURPOSE: The American College of Epidemiology held its 2021 Annual Meeting virtually, September 8-10, with a conference theme of 'From Womb to Tomb: Insights from Health Emergencies'. The American College of Epidemiology Ethics Committee hosted a symposium session in recognition of the ethical and social challenges brought to light by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and on the occasion of the publication of the third edition of the classic text, Ethics and Epidemiology. The American College of Epidemiology Ethics Committee invited the book editor and contributing authors to present at the symposium session titled 'Current Ethical and Social Issues in Epidemiology.' The purpose of this paper is to further highlight the ethical challenges and presentations. METHODS: Three speakers with expertise in ethics, health law, health policy, global health, health information technology, and translational research in epidemiology and public health were selected to present on the social and ethical issues in the current landscape. Dr. S Coughlin presented on the 'Ethical and Social Issues in Epidemiology', Dr. L Beskow presented on 'Ethical Challenges in Genetic Epidemiology', and Dr. K Goodman presented on the 'Ethics of Health Informatics'. RESULTS: New digital sources of data and technologies are driving the ethical challenges and opportunities in epidemiology and public health as it relates to the three emerging topic areas identified: (1) digital epidemiology, (2) genetic epidemiology, and (3) health informatics. New complexities such as the reliance on social media to control infectious disease outbreaks and the introduction of computing advancements are requiring re-evaluation of traditional bioethical frameworks for epidemiology research and public health practice. We identified several cross-cutting ethical and social issues related to informed consent, benefits, risks and harms, and privacy and confidentiality and summarized these alongside more nuanced ethical considerations such as algorithmic bias, group harms related to data (mis)representation, risks of misinformation, return of genomic research results, maintaining data security, and data sharing. We offered an integrated synthesis of the stages of epidemiology research planning and conduct with the ethical issues that are most relevant in these emerging topic areas. CONCLUSIONS: New realities exist for epidemiology and public health as professional groups who are faced with addressing population health, and especially given the recent pandemic and the widespread use of digital tools and technologies. Many ethical issues can be understood in the context of existing ethical frameworks; however, they have yet to be clearly identified or connected with the new technical and methodological applications of digital tools and technologies currently in use for epidemiology research and public health practice. To address current ethical challenges, we offered a synthesis of traditional ethical principles in public health science alongside more nuanced ethical considerations for emerging technologies and aligned these with lifecycle stages of epidemiology research. By critically reflecting on the impact of new digital sources of data and technologies on epidemiology research and public health practice, specifically in the control of infectious outbreaks, we offered insights on cultivating these new areas of professional growth while striving to improve population health.

Medical Student Choices Regarding Ventilator Allocation for People With Disabilities.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns exist that ventilator triage policies may lead to discrimination against people with disabilities. This study evaluates whether preclinical medical students demonstrate bias towards people with disabilities during an educational ventilator-allocation exercise. Written student responses to a triage simulation activity were analyzed to describe ventilator priority rankings and to identify themes regarding disability. Disability status was not cited as a reason to withhold a ventilator. Key themes observed in ventilator triage decisions included life expectancy, comorbidities, and social worth. Although disability discrimination has historically been perpetuated by health care professionals, it is encouraging that preclinical medical students did not demonstrate explicit bias against people with disabilities in ventilator triage scenarios.

Ethics Education in COVID-19: Preclinical Medical Students' Approach to Ventilator Allocation.

Introduction COVID-19 has confronted clinicians with a potential need to ration ventilators. There is little guidance for training medical students to make such decisions in future practice. How students would make ventilator triage decisions remains unknown. Methods One hundred fifty-three medical students in 18 problem-based learning groups participated in a ventilator-rationing exercise in April 2020 as part of an ethics curriculum adapted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Students were provided with a prompt requiring fictional patients to be prioritized for ventilators in the face of scarce resources. The authors reviewed group responses, tallied triage criteria, and identified approaches to triage decisions. Results The most common triage criteria were patient comorbidities, clinical status, age/life stage, prognosis, life expectancy, and an individual's role in pandemic response. Additional criteria included quality of life, ventilator availability, public perception, and patient need. Students approached triage decisions by developing systems for triage, appealing to empirical evidence and academic literature, making value judgments, and identifying adjuncts and alternatives to triage. Discussion With minimal input from educators, students learned key ethical principles in triage medicine, recapitulated approaches to triage described in the clinical and bioethics literature, and suggested methods for tolerating distress of complex ethical decisions. Medical education should equip students to critically consider bioethical concerns in triage and prepare for possible moral distress during public health crises.

Assessment of Disparities Associated With a Crisis Standards of Care Resource Allocation Algorithm for Patients in 2 US Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Significant concern has been raised that crisis standards of care policies aimed at guiding resource allocation may be biased against people based on race/ethnicity. Objective: To evaluate whether unanticipated disparities by race or ethnicity arise from a single institution's resource allocation policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) who were cared for on a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ward or in a monitored unit requiring invasive or noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula between May 26 and July 14, 2020, at 2 academic hospitals in Miami, Florida. Exposures: Race (ie, White, Black, Asian, multiracial) and ethnicity (ie, non-Hispanic, Hispanic). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was based on a resource allocation priority score (range, 1-8, with 1 indicating highest and 8 indicating lowest priority) that was assigned daily based on both estimated short-term (using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score) and longer-term (using comorbidities) mortality. There were 2 coprimary outcomes: maximum and minimum score for each patient over all eligible patient-days. Standard summary statistics were used to describe the cohort, and multivariable Poisson regression was used to identify associations of race and ethnicity with each outcome. Results: The cohort consisted of 5613 patient-days of data from 1127 patients (median [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 62.7 [51.7-73.7]; 607 [53.9%] men). Of these, 711 (63.1%) were White patients, 323 (28.7%) were Black patients, 8 (0.7%) were Asian patients, and 31 (2.8%) were multiracial patients; 480 (42.6%) were non-Hispanic patients, and 611 (54.2%) were Hispanic patients. The median (IQR) maximum priority score for the cohort was 3 (1-4); the median (IQR) minimum score was 2 (1-3). After adjustment, there was no association of race with maximum priority score using White patients as the reference group (Black patients: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.12; Asian patients: IRR, 0.95; 95% CI. 0.62-1.45; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19) or of ethnicity using non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10); similarly, no association was found with minimum score for race, again with White patients as the reference group (Black patients: IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14; Asian patients: IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.62-1.49; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07) or ethnicity, again with non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of adult patients admitted to a COVID-19 unit at 2 US hospitals, there was no association of race or ethnicity with the priority score underpinning the resource allocation policy. Despite this finding, any policy to guide altered standards of care during a crisis should be monitored to ensure equitable distribution of resources.

Ethics and informatics in the age of COVID-19: challenges and recommendations for public health organization and public policy.

The COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States has exposed significant gaps in information systems and processes that prevent timely clinical and public health decision-making. Specifically, the use of informatics to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2, support COVID-19 care delivery, and accelerate knowledge discovery bring to the forefront issues of privacy, surveillance, limits of state powers, and interoperability between public health and clinical information systems. Using a consensus-building process, we critically analyze informatics-related ethical issues in light of the pandemic across 3 themes: (1) public health reporting and data sharing, (2) contact tracing and tracking, and (3) clinical scoring tools for critical care. We provide context and rationale for ethical considerations and recommendations that are actionable during the pandemic and conclude with recommendations calling for longer-term, broader change (beyond the pandemic) for public health organization and policy reform.

Ethical surgical triage of patients with head and neck cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus has serially overtaken our metropolitan hospitals. At peak, patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome may outnumber mechanical ventilators. In our Miami Hospital System, COVID-19 cases have multiplied for 4 weeks and elective surgery has been suspended. METHODS: An Otolaryngologic Triage Committee was created to appropriately allocate resources to patients. Hospital ethicists provided support. Our tumor conference screened patients for nonsurgical options. Patients were tested twice for coronavirus before performing urgent contaminated operations. N95 masks and protective equipment were conserved when possible. Patients with low-grade cancers were advised to delay surgery, and other difficult decisions were made. RESULTS: Hundreds of surgeries were canceled. Sixty-five cases screened over 3 weeks are tabulated. Physicians and patients expressed discomfort regarding perceived deviations from standards, but risk of COVID-19 exposure tempered these discussions. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the use of actively managed surgical triage to fairly balance our patient's health with public health concerns.