COVID-19, children, clinical trials and compassion: The ethical case for using innovative or compassionate treatments.

AIM: Safe, effective SARS-CoV-2 treatment has not yet been determined, though some drugs have favourable mortality and morbidity benefits in specific situations. No treatments have been explicitly tested in children, who are, therefore, once again therapeutic orphans. METHOD: We echo calls to enrol patients, including children, into trials but those children recruited to date have largely been additions to adult studies. Few were recruited during the initial pandemic despite the emergence of PIMS-TS/MIS-C, which surely demands paediatric-specific research. RESULT: Must children be proscribed treatments effective in adults until child-specific data emerges, even in a pandemic? Will appropriately powered dedicated trials ever determine specific child-COVID-19 treatment pathways? Is the protracted time frame to assemble such data acceptable to children with severe COVID-19 today? Such factors are relevant in considering whether children should have access to compassionate, innovative, pandemic-disease treatment. CONCLUSION: We argue that children should be permitted, indeed have a right, to access innovative treatments early in any future pandemic, following an individual best interests consideration. This will remain the case until formal studies powered to determine children's optimal treatment commence, when the moral duty switches to ensuring children are enrolled, with any preceding innovative-use data made available to researchers.

The Birkenhead drill suggests 'women and children first': government and society's reversal of the drill during the COVID-19 pandemic, left children last and cannot be allowed to continue.

The Birkenhead drill states that in the time of crisis, the correct action is to prioritise the weakest and most vulnerable, in that example, women and children. Ethically this has been well analysed in terms of the intrinsic value of the human versus any utilitarian calculus of worth to society's function. We do not attempt to re-analyse this but do note that standard pandemic planning often disadvantages the weak and vulnerable in terms of allocation of resources to those with a greater chance of functional survival. We more argue from a debt that society owes its children in terms of the sacrifices they have made in terms of school, social life, healthcare and overall welfare during the pandemic from which they were at markedly less risk than adults. Society owes a debt to its young, and this on top of pre-existing commitments to the them that most nations fail to realise, calls for prioritisation of children and young people's issues as society rebuilds. The effects of poverty and systemic racism on many children must be tackled; so too the existential threats of climate change and pollution. COVID-19 provides a once in a generation opportunity to create a kinder, fairer society. Early signs are not good: Pub re-opening prioritised over school re-opening; no significant investment in children's services or women's health, a significant determinant of children's welfare. We highlight the way COVID-19 has, and continues, to harm children and argue that the contemporary erosion of the Birkenhead principle is simply amoral.

Young people's views on their role in the COVID-19 pandemic and society's recovery from it.

OBJECTIVE: There has been little formal exploration of how young people see their role in the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN/SETTING: Focus-group discussion with 15 Children's Hospital Young People's Forum members (23/5) to explore their perspective on the impact of COVID-19 on both their lives and those of their community, on school closures, and the role they wished to play in society's recovery from the pandemic. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim using NVivo Software and analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. OUTCOME: Four major themes identified: (1) Awareness of pandemic's impact on others: participants showed mature awareness of the effects on broader society, especially the elderly, socially disadvantaged and parents. (2) Perceived impact on their own lives: principal concerns were the educational and practical repercussions of school closures and social isolation, including effects on educational prospects. (3) Views about school reopening: young people understood the broader rationale for school reopening and were generally positive about it, but expressed concerned about their safety and that of others. (4) Communication issues: a need for clear, concise, understandable information readily accessible for young people was expressed. Up to now, they felt passive recipients rather than participants. CONCLUSION: Young people were concerned about their future, their family and broader society, consistent with a high level of moral development. They want to be active participants in social recovery, including concepts around return to school but require appropriate information and a means by which their voices can be heard. The alternative suggested roles as pawns or pathfinders were discounted.