Ethico-legal regional differences in European neurosurgical practice: Part 1-pre-COVID-19 era.

Introduction: Professionalism entails expert knowledge, self-regulation, accountability, and professional ethics. These factors are influenced by culture, political observance, professional maturity, education, and occupation; ethical practices may thus vary between countries and affect how neurosurgery is practiced. Research question: This paper aims to conduct a survey that addresses whether ethico-legal practices differ in European countries and whether existing ethical guidelines have been implemented. Material and methods: A questionnaire survey was used to examine the ethico-legal situation in 29 European countries or regions. The reports were validated by representatives of each nation. Results: Existing guidelines had been implemented to a minimal extent. Major regional and national differences were found in attitudes toward life and death, prioritization, and issues related to professional conduct. Discussion and conclusion: The results of this survey reveal inadequacies and weaknesses of policies and resources, which should spark national discussions to improve the conditions that influence professional ethics. Unfortunately, only a minority of neurosurgeons know the neurosurgical ethics guidelines and apply them in their decision making. Our findings highlight the importance of values and professional ethics in decision making.

Three pitfalls of accountable healthcare rationing.

A pandemic may cause a sudden imbalance between available medical resources and medical needs where fundamental care to a patient cannot be delivered. Inability to fulfil a professional commitment to deliver care as needed can lead to distress among caregivers and patients. This distress is sometimes alleviated through mechanisms that hide the facts that care is rationed and not all medical needs are met. We have identified three mechanisms that jeopardise accountable and optimal allocation of resources: (1) hidden value judgements that allow rationing under the disguise of triage or prioritisation, (2) disguised conflict of interest between societal and individual patient's needs and (3) concealed biases in the application of medical tools. Under these three pitfalls decisions of resource allocation and who gets treated are handled as medical decisions: normative decisions are concealed and perceived as falling with the realm of medical judgement. Value judgements and moral agency are hidden to offer a 'false sense of medical judgement', while in fact there are several ethical judgements and biases at stake. The three pitfalls entail hidden normative deliberation and are inappropriate for sustainable healthcare delivery and resource allocation. We believe it is necessary to maintain transparency in decision making under conditions of insufficient resources to maintain trust in professional care givers and secure fair treatment allocation. Recognition of the pitfalls, by applying our recommendations, may help to ensure transparent and accountable distribution of care and contribute to public acceptance of the ethics behind rationing.

Should neurosurgeons continue to work in the absence of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 era?

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a widespread shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). Many healthcare workers, including neurosurgeons, have expressed concern about how to safely and adequately perform their medical responsibilities in these challenging circumstances. One of these concerns revolves around the pressing question: should providers continue to work in the absence of adequate PPE? Although the first peak of the COVID-19 crisis seems to have subsided and supply of PPE has increased, concerns about insufficient PPE availability remain. Inconsistent supply, limited efficacy, and continued high demand for PPE, combined with the continued threat of a second COVID-19 wave, mean that the issues surrounding PPE availability remain unresolved, including a duty to work. This paper offers an ethical investigation of whether neurosurgeons should perform their professional responsibilities with limited availability of PPE. We evaluate ethical considerations and conflicting duties and thereby hope to facilitate providers in making a well-considered personal and moral decision about this challenging issue.

Ethical triage during the COVID-19 pandemic: a toolkit for neurosurgical resource allocation.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic confronts healthcare workers, including neurosurgeons, with difficult choices regarding which patients to treat. METHODS: In order to assist ethical triage, this article gives an overview of the main considerations and ethical principles relevant when allocating resources in times of scarcity. RESULTS: We discuss a framework employing four principles: prioritizing the worst off, maximizing benefits, treating patients equally, and promoting instrumental value. We furthermore discuss the role of age and comorbidity in triage and highlight some principles that may seem intuitive but should not form a basis for triage. CONCLUSIONS: This overview is presented on behalf of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies and can be used as a toolkit for neurosurgeons faced with ethical dilemmas when triaging patients in times of scarcity.