Response-Liminality and the Mirage of Settlement.

Little and colleagues' (1998) paper describing a key aspect of cancer patients' experience, that of "liminality," is remarkable for giving articulation to a very common and yet mostly overlooked aspect of patient experience. Little et. al. offered a formulation of liminality that deliberately set aside the concept's more common use in analysing social rituals, in order to grasp at the interior experience that arises when failing bodily function and awareness of mortality are forced into someone's consciousness, as occurs with a diagnosis of cancer. We set out the reasons as to why this analysis was so significant in 1998-but we also consider how the "liminality" described by Little and colleagues was (as they suggested) a feature of modernity, founded on what we term "the mirage of settlement." We argue that this mirage is impossible to sustain in 2022 amid the many forms of un-settling that have characterized late modernity, including climate change and COVID-19. We argue that many people in developed nations now experience liminality as a result of the being forced into the consciousness of living in a continued state of coloniality. We thus rejoin the social aspects of liminality to the interior, Existential form described by Little et. al.

Multiple COVID-19 vaccine doses in CLL and MBL improve immune responses with progressive and high seroconversion.

Chronic lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) and Monoclonal B-Lymphocytosis (MBL) patients have impaired response to COVID-19 vaccination. A total 258 patients (215 CLL and 43 MBL) had anti-spike levels evaluable for statistical analysis. The overall seroconversion rate for CLL was 94.2% (anti-spike ³50AU/mL Abbott Diagnostics) and for MBL 100%. After 3 doses (post-D3) in 167 CLL patients, 73.7% were seropositive, 17.4% had anti-spike levels 50-999AU/mL, and 56.3% ≥1000AU/mL with a median rise from 144.6AU/mL to 1800.7AU/mL. Of patients seronegative post-D2, 39.7% seroconverted post-D3. For those who then remained seronegative after their prior dose, seroconversion occurred in 40.6% post-D4, 46.2% post-D5, 16.7% post-D6, and 0% after D7 or D8. Following seroconversion, most had a progressive increment in anti-spike antibody level: in CLL after the latest dose, 70.2% achieved anti-spike level ≥1,000AU/mL, 48.1% ≥5,000AU/mL, and 30.3% ≥10,000AU/mL. Neutralization was associated with higher anti-spike levels, more vaccines and earlier COVID variants; 65.3% detected neutralizing antibody against early clade D614G, 52.0% against Delta, and 36.5% against Omicron. COVID-specific T-cell production of IFN-γ occurred in 73.9% and IL-2 in 60.9% of 23 tested, and more consistently with higher anti-spike levels. After multiple vaccine doses, by multivariate analysis, IgM ≥0.53g/L (OR=2.90, p=0.0314), IgG3 ≥0.22g/L (OR=3.26, p=0.0057), and lack of current CLL therapy (OR=2.48, p=0.0574) were independent predictors of positive serological responses. Strong neutralization and T-cell responses had high concordance with high anti-spike levels. Multiple sequential COVID-19 vaccination significantly increased seroconversion and anti-spike antibody levels in CLL and MBL.

What is needed to sustain improvements in hospital practices post-COVID-19? a qualitative study of interprofessional dissonance in hospital infection prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: Hospital infection prevention and control (IPC) depends on consistent practice to achieve its purpose. Standard precautions are embedded in modern healthcare policies, but not uniformly observed by all clinicians. Well-documented differences in attitudes to IPC, between doctors and nurses, contribute to suboptimal IPC practices and persistence of preventable healthcare-associated infections. The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected healthcare professionals' work-practices, lives and health and increased awareness and observance of IPC. Successful transition of health services to a 'post-COVID-19' future, will depend on sustainable integration of lessons learnt into routine practice. METHODS: The aim of this pre-COVID-19 qualitative study was to investigate factors influencing doctors' IPC attitudes and practices, whether they differ from those of nurses and, if so, how this affects interprofessional relationships. We hypothesised that better understanding would guide new strategies to achieve more effective IPC. We interviewed 26 senior clinicians (16 doctors and 10 nurses) from a range of specialties, at a large Australian tertiary hospital. Interview transcripts were reviewed iteratively, and themes identified inductively, using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants from both professions painted clichéd portraits of 'typical' doctors and nurses and recounted unflattering anecdotes of their IPC behaviours. Doctors were described as self-directed and often unaware or disdainful of IPC rules; while nurses were portrayed as slavishly following rules, ostensibly to protect patients, irrespective of risk or evidence. Many participants believed that doctors object to being reminded of IPC requirements by nurses, despite many senior doctors having limited knowledge of correct IPC practice. Overall, participants' comments suggested that the 'doctor-nurse game'-described in the 1960s, to exemplify the complex power disparity between professions-is still in play, despite changes in both professions, in the interim. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that interprofessional differences and inconsistencies constrain IPC practice improvement. IPC inconsistencies and failures can be catastrophic, but the common threat of COVID-19 has promoted focus and unity. Appropriate implementation of IPC policies should be context-specific and respect the needs and expertise of all stakeholders. We propose an ethical framework to guide interprofessional collaboration in establishing a path towards sustained improvements in IPC and bio-preparedness.

Vaccine suspension, risk, and precaution in a pandemic.

In early 2021, cases of rare adverse events were observed in individuals who had received the Astra Zeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Countries around the world differed radically in their policy responses to these observations. In this paper, we outline the ethical justification for different policy approaches for managing the emerging risks of novel vaccines in a pandemic. We begin by detailing the precautionary approach that some countries adopted, and distinguishing ethical questions regarding the management of known and unknown risks. We go on to outline the harms of adopting a highly precautionary approach in a pandemic context, and explain why an appropriate policy approach should accommodate the benefits as well as the risks of vaccination. In the final section, we outline three policy approaches that can accommodate the different benefits of vaccination, whilst taking into account the harms of precaution. Whilst we do not set out to defend one particular policy approach, we explain how different moral theories lend different degrees of support to each of these different approaches. Our analysis elucidates how fundamental value conflicts in public health ethics played out on the global stage of vaccine policy.

COVID-19 vaccine failure in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and monoclonal B-lymphocytosis; humoural and cellular immunity.

Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is associated with immunocompromise and high risk of severe COVID-19 disease and mortality. Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) patients also have immune impairment. We evaluated humoural and cellular immune responses in 181 patients with CLL (160) and MBL (21) to correlate failed seroconversion [<50 AU/ml SARS-CoV-2 II IgG assay, antibody to spike protein; Abbott Diagnostics)] following each of two vaccine doses with clinical and laboratory parameters. Following first and second doses, 79.2% then 45% of CLL, and 50% then 9.5% of MBL patients respectively remained seronegative. There was significant association between post dose two antibody level with pre-vaccination reduced IgM (p < 0.0001), IgG2 (p < 0.035), and IgG3 (p < 0.046), and CLL therapy within 12 months (p < 0.001) in univariate analysis. By multivariate analysis, reduced IgM (p < 0.0002) and active therapy (p < 0.0002) retained significance. Anti-spike protein levels varied widely and were lower in CLL than MBL patients, and both lower than in normal donors. Neutralisation activity showed anti-spike levels <1000 AU/ml were usually negative for both an early viral clade and the contemporary Delta variant and 72.9% of CLL and 53.3% of MBL failed to reach levels ≥1000 AU/ml. In a representative sample, ~80% had normal T-cell responses. Failed seroconversion occurred in 36.6% of treatment-naïve patients, in 78.1% on therapy, and in 85.7% on ibrutinib.

COVID-19 restrictions should only be lifted when it is safe to do so for Aboriginal communities.

The NSW Government has proposed a blanket lifting of COVID-19 restrictions when the proportion of fully vaccinated people rate reaches 70% of the adult population. If implemented, this would have devastating effects on Aboriginal populations. At the present time, vaccination rates in Aboriginal communities remain low. Once restrictions are lifted, unvaccinated people will be at high risk of infection. The risks of serious illness and death among Aboriginal people from a variety of medical conditions are significantly greater than for the wider population. This is also the case with COVID-19 in First Nations populations around the world. The vulnerability of Aboriginal people is an enduring consequence of colonialism and is exacerbated by the fact that many live in overcrowded and poorly maintained houses in communities with under-resourced health services. A current workforce crisis and the demographic structure of the population have further hindered the effectiveness of vaccination programmes. Aboriginal organisations have called on state and federal governments to delay any substantial easing of restrictions until full vaccination rates among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations aged 16 years and older reach 90-95%. They have also called for additional support in the form of supply of vaccines, enhancement of workforce capacity and appropriate incentives to address hesitancy. Australia remains burdened by the legacy of centuries of harm and damage to its First Nations people. Urgent steps must be taken to avoid a renewed assault on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

Understanding the ethical implications of the rituals of medicine.

Rituals may be understood broadly as stereotyped behaviours carrying symbolic meanings, which play a crucial role in defining relationships, legitimating authority, giving meaning to certain life events and stabilising social structures. Despite intense interest in the subject, and an extensive literature, relatively little attention has been given to the nature, role and function of ritual in contemporary medicine. Medicine is replete with ritualistic behaviours and imperatives, which play a crucial role in all aspects of clinical practice. Rituals play multiple, complex functions in clinical interactions and have an important role in shaping interactions, experiences and outcomes. Longstanding medical rituals have been disrupted in the wake of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Medical rituals may be evident or invisible, often overlap with or operate alongside instrumentalised practices, and play crucial roles in establishing, maintaining and guaranteeing the efficacy of clinical practices. Rituals can also inhibit progress and change, by enforcing arbitrary authority. Physicians should consider when they are undertaking a ritual practice and recognise when the exigencies of contemporary practice are affecting that ritual with or without meaning or intention. Physicians should reflect on whether aspects of their ritual interactions are undertaken on the basis of sentiment, custom or evidence-based outcomes, and whether rituals should be defended, continued in a modified fashion or even abandoned in favour of new behaviours suitable for and salient with contemporary practice in the interests of patient care.

Accelerating the De-Personalization of Medicine: The Ethical Toxicities of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has, of necessity, demanded the rapid incorporation of virtual technologies which, suddenly, have superseded the physical medical encounter. These imperatives have been implemented in advance of evaluation, with unclear risks to patient care and the nature of medical practice that might be justifiable in the context of a pandemic but cannot be extrapolated as a new standard of care. Models of care fit for purpose in a pandemic should not be generalized to reconfigure medical care as virtual by default, and personal by exception at the conclusion of the emergency.

Science at Warp Speed: Medical Research, Publication, and Translation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a rapid growth in research focused on developing vaccines and therapies. In this context, the need for speed is taken for granted, and the scientific process has adapted to accommodate this. On the surface, attempts to speed up the research enterprise appear to be a good thing. It is, however, important to consider what, if anything, might be lost when biomedical innovation is sped up. In this article we use the case of a study recently retracted from the Lancet to illustrate the potential risks and harms associated with speeding up science. We then argue that, with appropriate governance mechanisms in place (and adequately resourced), it should be quite possible to both speed up science and remain attentive to scientific quality and integrity.

An Ethics Framework for Making Resource Allocation Decisions Within Clinical Care: Responding to COVID-19.

On March, 24, 2020, 818 cases of COVID-19 had been reported in New South Wales, Australia, and new cases were increasing at an exponential rate. In anticipation of resource constraints arising in clinical settings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a working party of ten ethicists (seven clinicians and three full-time academics) was convened at the University of Sydney to draft an ethics framework to support resource allocation decisions. The framework guides decision-makers using a question-and-answer format, in language that avoids philosophical and medical technicality. The working party met five times over the following week and then submitted a draft Framework for consideration by two groups of intensivists and one group of academic ethicists. It was also presented to a panel on a national current affairs programme. The Framework was then revised on the basis of feedback from these sources and made publicly available online on April 3, ten days after the initial meeting. The framework is published here in full to stimulate ongoing discussion about rapid development of user-friendly clinical ethics resources in ongoing and future pandemics.