ABSTRACT
The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is currently facing a significant waiting list backlog following the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, with millions of patients waiting for elective surgical procedures. Effective treatment prioritisation has been identified as a key element of addressing this backlog, with NHS England's delivery plan highlighting the importance of ensuring that those with ‘the clinically most urgent conditions are diagnosed and treated most rapidly'. Indeed, we describe how the current clinical guidance on prioritisation issued by The Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations serves this aim. However, whilst there are strong reasons to prioritise elective surgery in accordance with clinical need, we argue that it would be a mistake to assume that prioritisation in accordance with clinical need requires only a clinical or scientific judgement. The understanding of clinical need that we choose to employ in a prioritisation system will be grounded by some key ethical judgements. Moreover, we may also have to make trade-offs between addressing clinical need, safeguarding equality, and achieving other benefits. As the UK faces up to the backlog, it is important that surgical prioritisation guidelines enshrine a broad range of values that we believe ought to determine access to care in non-emergency circumstances. Our analysis suggests that the current approach to prioritisation is not a sufficiently nuanced way of balancing the different moral values that are operative in this context. © The Author(s) 2023.
ABSTRACT
Although empirical evidence may provide a much desired sense of certainty amidst a pandemic characterised by uncertainty, the vast gamut of available COVID-19 data, including misinformation, has instead increased confusion and distrust in authorities' decisions. One key lesson we have been gradually learning from the COVID-19 pandemic is that the availability of empirical data and scientific evidence alone do not automatically lead to good decisions. Good decision-making in public health policy, this paper argues, does depend on the availability of reliable data and rigorous analyses, but depends above all on sound ethical reasoning that ascribes value and normative judgement to empirical facts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
Diagnostic laboratories are an integral part of the research ecosystem in biomedical sciences. Among other roles, laboratories are a source of clinically-characterized samples for research or diagnostic validation studies. Particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, this process was entered by laboratories with different experience in the ethical management of human samples. The objective of this document is to present the current ethical framework regarding the use of leftover samples in clinical laboratories. Leftover samples are defined as the residue of a sample that has been obtained and used for clinical purposes, and would otherwise be discarded. Secondary use of samples typically demands institutional ethical oversight and informed consent by the participants, although the latter requirement could be exempted when the harm risks are sufficiently small. However, ongoing discussions have proposed that minimal risk is an insufficient argument to allow the use of samples without consent. In this article, we discuss both positions, to finally suggest that laboratories anticipating the secondary use of samples should consider the adoption of broad informed consent, or even the implementation of organized biobanking, in order to achieve higher standards of ethical compliance which would enhance their capacity to fulfill their role in the production of knowledge.
ABSTRACT
Calls for solidarity have been an ubiquitous feature in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we know little about how people have thought of and practised solidarity in their everyday lives since the beginning of the pandemic. What role does solidarity play in people's lives, how does it relate to COVID-19 public health measures and how has it changed in different phases of the pandemic? Situated within the medical humanities at the intersection of philosophy, bioethics, social sciences and policy studies, this article explores how the practice-based understanding of solidarity formulated by Prainsack and Buyx helps shed light on these questions. Drawing on 643 qualitative interviews carried out in two phases (April-May 2020 and October 2020) in nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, German-speaking Switzerland and the UK), the data show that interpersonal acts of solidarity are important, but that they are not sustainable without consistent support at the institutional level. As the pandemic progressed, respondents expressed a longing for more institutionalised forms of solidarity. We argue that the medical humanities have much to gain from directing their attention to individual health issues, and to collective experiences of health or illness. The analysis of experiences through a collective lens such as solidarity offers unique insights to understandings of the individual and the collective. We propose three essential advances for research in the medical humanities that can help uncover collective experiences of disease and health crises: (1) an empirical and practice-oriented approach alongside more normative approaches; (2) the confidence to make recommendations for practice and policymaking and (3) the pursuit of cross-national and multidisciplinary research collaborations.
ABSTRACT
Bioethics is a field in which innovation is required to help prevent and respond to zoonotic diseases with the potential to cause epidemics and pandemics. Some of the developments necessary to fight pandemics, such as COVID-19 vaccines, require public debate on the benefits and risks of individual choice versus responsibility to society. While these debates are necessary, a more fundamental ethical innovation to rebalance human, animal, and environmental interests is also needed. One Health (OH) can be characterized as a strategy that recognizes and promotes the synergy between human, animal, and environmental health. Yet, despite the recognition that these entities are interdependent, there is a pronounced inequality in the power relations between human, non-human animal, and the environmental interests which threatens the well-being of all. Until OH can ensure the moral status of animals and the environment and thereby the equal consideration of these interests, it will struggle to protect non-human interests and, as a result, human health. To create a sustainable health system requires a renewed concept of justice that is ecocentric in nature and an application of OH that is flexible and responsive to different ethical interests (e.g., person-centred care and physician responsibilities). Ultimately, to save themselves, humans must now think beyond themselves. Bioethics must assume a key role in supporting the developments required to create and maintain relationships able to sustain environmental and human health.
ABSTRACT
This book addresses the many ethical issues and extraordinary risks that nurses and others are facing during the COVID-19 pandemic, which creates physical, emotional, and economic burdens, affecting nurses' overall health and well-being. Nurses are essential front-line clinicians across all health care settings and in every nation. The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel SARs-CoV-2 virus has affected children, adults, and communities within and across all societies. Nurses, too, have contracted the virus and died from the disease. They have also seen their colleagues, family members, and friends hospitalized or in intensive care units struggling to survive. Nursing's professionalism and disciplinary resolve to care for patients and families amidst confusion, misinformation, and shifting guidelines has been called "heroic" by the public. How much risk should nurses be expected to accept during a pandemic? How do nurses help patients and families find comfort and dignity at the end-of-life? How do we help nurses who are suffering from moral distress and mental health concerns from what they have seen, been asked to do, or are unable to provide? And, how does society move forward from a pandemic that has challenged our basic ethical principles of justice and what is "fair, good and right" in caring for those who need care, including the most vulnerable and nurses themselves? This book addresses these and other ethical concerns that nurses are facing in their day-to-day clinical practice;experiences shared with patients, families, and colleagues. Although this book was written while the pandemic was still raging across the United States and globally, the events needed to be told as they were unfolding. This book helps us to learn from both the successes and failures that are affecting so many across the globe, including those on whom the public relies on to provide quality, compassionate, and expert care when they are sick: nurses. © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Purpose of Study: The regional NICU is an essential healthcare resource for families of newborns with serious life-threatening illnesses. Mechanical ventilation, cardiovascular therapies, therapeutic hypothermia, and neonatal surgeries are common life-sustaining interventions. Our NICU serves an underprivileged population in a resource poor environment and several ethical questions frequently emerge when facing extremes of innovative therapies. The pandemic and rapidly changing institutional protocols accentuated challenges faced by frontline NICU teams caring for newborns at risk for devastating illnesses and death. Concurrently, evolving paradigms in neonatal ethics required urgent and high quality palliative care in a background of racial and socioeconomic inequities, restrictive visitation policies, and limited healthcare resources. The purpose of this study was to ensure that neonates and their families receive ethically sound care, timely referrals for innovative therapies, and specialized palliative care in the strained and uncertain environment of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Used: The key steps consisted of structured and impromptu discussion forums for specialized palliative care and medical ethics, perinatal case conferences and pediatrics grand rounds on virtual platforms, educational webinars for interdisciplinary teams, and improved electronic communication. Online collaboration and innovative combinations of in-person and virtual meetings were utilized for urgently Incorporating clinical updates. Summary of Results: 1. A neonate with severe HIE and postnatally diagnosed congenital diaphragmatic hernia required emergent ECMO center referral. NICU providers utilized a structured bioethics and palliative care framework for providing family support and discussing the prognostication challenges of acute illnesses. 2. Many important bioethical questions emerged while caring for infants with life-threatening chromosomal abnormalities. Ethical tension was addressed by teaching tools, quality of life and pediatrics ethics conversations, mitigation of moral distress, contemporary clinical and surgical experience, community engagement, and family perspectives. 3. Ethical conflicts are central in the decision to resuscitate neonates born between 22 and 23 weeks of gestation. To provide urgent prenatal consultations and attend high risk deliveries, we collaborated across geographically distant healthcare systems, unified management strategies and analyzed outcomes data. 4. NEC in several extremely preterm babies had devastating outcomes and the team respected each family's voice with compassionate, shared decision-making for both curative care surgeries and palliative care. Conclusion(s): The new workflows, telephone and video conferences, and redirection to telehealth based family meetings did not change important outcomes during the pandemic. Advocacy and education for integrating bioethics and palliative care were vital facets of neonatal critical care in a resource poor and ever-changing pandemic environment.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 is a sanitary and humanitarian crisis featured among the greatest pandemics humanity has ever known. This article highlights its syndemic character, taken on by encountering populations with greater economic, social, and environmental vulnerability. Before such contexts, the essay proposes an ontological reflection about the human being and how moral enhancement can facilitate empathetic dialogues that generate national and international solidary solutions during pandemic crises. For this purpose, it draws upon the concepts of syndemic, bioethics, ontology, moral enhancement, facilitator, dialogue, dialectics, empathy, conatus, affections, appetite, desire, and continuum and their potential for reducing harm during COVID-19. Finally, this paper will conclude with a brief discussion based on Spinoza's rationalist perspective. © 2023, Conselho Federal de Medicina. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic caused an increase in patients referred to Intensive Care Units (ICU). The application of triage algorithms caused ethical dilemmas when it was necessary to decide on the clinical management and/or treatment of patients. Objectives: To analyze the main bioethical aspects involved in the algorithms used in triage decision-making in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic based on a review of the literature published in the period comprehended from July 2020 to February 2021. Methods: A search was conducted in Pubmed, Scielo, Ovid and Cochrane with the search terms in English and Spanish: "triage,""Covid,""SARS Cov-2", "intensive care unit", "ethics". Articles that did not mention intervention algorithms in the ICU, which do not analyze decision-making, which do not involve the clinical setting, which were not indexed, or repeated articles were excluded. Results: 45 articles were obtained: Two authors independently reviewed the s to eliminate bias, selecting 12 articles that met the selection criteria. It was found that the main ethical aspects that were considered were: unavoidable prioritization, justice, and support for the role of clinical judgment, taking personal rights into account. Conclusions: It is necessary to make bioethical adjustments to standardize the universalization of decision-making at times when the capacity of health services is exceeded. Copyright © 2023 Grecia Alejandra García León, Dania Nimbe Lima Sánchez, Lucía Abascal Miguel.
ABSTRACT
The summarizing up the semantic and systemic results should comprise the next phase to provide insights into COVID-19 pandemic and consider it as a modern epidemic and humanitarian crisis on global level. The journal <<Infection and Immunity>> regularly and consistently present the results of ethically viewed legal framework of the pandemic and the administrative regulation of the public health system. Analysis and ethical assessment of the situation covers a wide range of issues, including the provision and operational adaptation of the regulatory framework, the problems of medical care, the processes and conditions for developing diagnostics, treatment and prevention, as well as all aspects related to the organization and implementing vaccination. Three previous ethical comments presented in 2020-2022 during the pandemic were devoted to these issues. Current study within the framework of the <<fourth ethical commentary>> follows directly from the data obtained while evaluating and analysing real-world experience on vaccination in the context of a regional cluster - the CIS member states, presented in the previous article. The perceived need and obvious significance of the study is to highlight objective factors of vulnerability in the vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify the response spectrum to form trust/or distrust to vaccination in various sectors of society, depending on a set of social and moral factors, including those coupled to a religious denomination. The data obtained are of paramount importance to find the moral ways to support and stabilize a responsible attitude with the aim to protect moral, social and physical health in emergency situations.Copyright © 2023 Saint Petersburg Pasteur Institute. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has recalled the importance of prevention and preparedness for highly disastrous events in community health. Several emerging phenomena pose prospective threats to public health. However, the largely future-oriented character of problems, for instance, such as antibiotic resistance, the impact of climate change on health, or the bioengineering of pathogens generates difficulties of analysis. What are the ethical and epistemological challenges raised by future public health problems? How should the moral problems of potentially catastrophic future scenarios be addressed? This article argues in favour of adopting anticipatory ethical approaches from public health ethics. First, it will be argued that addressing these future problems requires reflection on the future as an ethical and epistemic problem. Second, the characteristics of the emerging anticipatory ethics in the fields of ethics of technology and bioethics will be clarified. Third, the application of foresight and anticipatory methodologies in public health ethics debates will be defended. Finally, some reflections will be offered to strengthen anticipatory normative analyses to prevent and address in advance the adverse effects of future health crises.
ABSTRACT
This study analyzes Law 13,979/2020 (Quarantine Law), according to the principles established by the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, to identify the main similarities and differences between both legal frameworks in terms of the determinations imposed by the former to combat COVID-19. A bibliographic and documental search was conducted on constitutional legislation, on the Executive's norms, and on international regulations about bioethics. Comparison between the dictates of Law 13,979/2020 and the declaration's principles shows that the law is in line with the field of bioethics. Compliance with health measures implies recognizing and valuing human dignity and caring for one's own vulnerability and that of others. © 2023, Conselho Federal de Medicina. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Placebo use in clinical trials, whenever a proven effective treatment exists, is one of the most debated topics in contemporary research ethics. This article addresses the ethical framework for placebo use in clinical trials assessing vaccine efficacy in pregnant women. Vaccine trial participants are healthy at the outset and some must be infected during the study to demonstrate the product's efficacy, meaning that placebo-treated participants are under risk of serious and irreversible harm. If effective vaccines exist, such risk precludes placebo use. This interdiction should be extended to any clinical trial of vaccine efficacy in pregnant women, because a demonstration of clinical efficacy in nonpregnant individuals and comparable immunogenic responses in pregnant women are predictors of efficacy in pregnancy as well. Moreover, product effectiveness in real-world use scenarios can be ascertained by observational studies conducted after its inclusion in vaccination campaigns. © 2023, Conselho Federal de Medicina. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Ipswich Hospital, which also stopped offering nitrous oxide in its maternity unit in December, resumed access in February after installing new ventilation units and monitoring residual levels of the gas. NHS England said that in February 75% of patients urgently referred got a cancer diagnosis or had it ruled out within 28 days, meeting the target set out in NHS England's faster diagnosis standard.2 Access to CAR-T treatments is expanded NHS England has struck a deal with Gilead Sciences for two CAR-T treatments approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to enter the Cancer Drugs Fund. Turkey earthquakes Aid efforts neglect people with disabilities The dignity and right to health of people with disabilities in displacement camps in Turkey is being undermined by the authorities' and aid agencies' response, Amnesty International has warned. Since the earthquakes struck Turkey in February an estimated 3.3 million people have been displaced and more than 100 000 injured, and 70% are estimated to have a disability.
ABSTRACT
Due to the rapid advance of the pandemic caused by COVID-19, several countries perceived that human and material resources would be insufficient to meet the demand of infected patients. The aim of this study is to analyze the knowledge of health professionals working in the pandemic about the application of ethical criteria in decision-making in situations of resource scarcity. This is a cross-sectional, descriptive, and quantitative survey study, conducted from June to December 2020, with health professionals working in the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. We applied a questionnaire to assess the professionals' knowledge about ethical criteria in decision-making in the allocation of scarce resources during the pandemic, containing 14 questions and possible score from 0 to 70, which was developed by researchers from documents and protocols validated by organizations from various countries, available in the first months of the pandemic, a sociodemographic characterization questionnaire and a self-assessment questionnaire regarding knowledge about bioethics. A total of 197 health professionals participated in the study, 37.6% of whom were nurses and 22.8% of whom were physicians, working in the Family Health Unit (28.4%) with a degree at the level of specialization (46.2%). Moreover, (9.5%) of nurses, (18.2%) of dental surgeons and (24.4%) of physicians reported that they have no prior knowledge about bioethics. Physicians and hospital workers scored higher on the knowledge assessment questionnaire. The mean score of the participants was 45.4 (SD = 7.2). Investments in training and professional education in the field of health focused on Bioethics are necessary, considering models and ethical theories that help professionals, managers and society to better position themselves in the face of pandemic contexts.
ABSTRACT
The systematic monitoring of ethical contents and events related to COVID-19 pandemic, carried out over the last two years, serves to develop a multi-professional discussion on one of the most relevant platforms - Russian Journal Infection and Immunity. Two previous articles consistently presented the moral context of historically established regulatory and epidemiological paradigms and the analysis of readiness/unwillingness to follow them in the real-life conditions during the epidemic crisis. The contemporary moral cross-section of the pandemic, characterized by the state of global loss of values of social unity, trust and solidarity leaves virtually no doubt about the dominant role of ethics as a criterion for resolving conflicts of interest. The point of the peak moral tension was vaccine prevention at all levels of its introduction into an effective resource for containing COVID-19. According to the authors' personal and professional responsibility, based on long-term scientific research of vaccination-related ethics, embodied in the books Ethics of Infectious Pathology (2014) and Ethics of Vaccination (Criterion of Scientific and Humanitarian Breakthrough (2018), account for our interest in writing this paper. In the Third Ethical Commentary presented to the readers the two ideologically related tasks have been set. First, to consider the ethically verified canon of vaccine prevention specifically exemplified by COVID-19 pandemic. Second, to expand the scope in the discussion of the ethics role by connecting the vaccination in the context of a regional cluster, namely the CIS member states. This opportunity took place owing the long-term cooperation to create ethical evaluation system within the framework of the WHO project Forum of Ethics Committees in the Commonwealth of Independent States (FECCIS) and the practice of developing model laws in the field of social policy and human rights of the IPA CIS. The perspective focus of this work is the need for an innovative approach to develop management decisions by enlarging the interdisciplinary range and expanding the areas of responsibility of social and bioethical meaning while protecting public health in epidemic crisis.
ABSTRACT
Solidarity is part of the map of values and ethical principles of the COVID-19 pandemic that has devastated the world since the end of 2019. Solidarity has been behind the justification for public health measures such as confinement, quarantines, lockdowns, the man-datory use of masks, and the financing, distribution and inoculation of vaccines against the virus;it has also been used to economic compensation, intergenerational sacrifices, the importance of public health care and even mutual aid between citizens, institutions and countries to face the worst effects of the pandemic. However, solidarity has been used interchangeably as a descriptive and normative, motivational and justificatory, sentimental and political, moral and legal idea, thus increasing confusion about its meaning, use and scope. This article reviews the rhetorical use of solidarity during the pandemic, shows the contradictions derived from that use, and sheds light on the normative use it should have in order to more rigorously address responses to future pandemics.
ABSTRACT
A "Pandemic/Disaster Law" is needed to condense and organize the current dispersed and multiple legislation. The State must exercise a single power and command appropriate to each situation, with national validity. The production of plans for the use of land and real estate as potential centers for health care, shelter or refuge is recommended. There should be specific disaster plans at least for Primary Health Care, Hospitals and Socio-sanitary Centers. The guarantee of the maintenance of communication and supply routes is essential, as well as the guarantee of the autochthonous production of basic goods. The pandemic has highlighted the need to redefine the training plans for physicians who, in their different specialties, have to undertake reforms that allow a more versatile and transversal training. National research must have plans to be able to respond quickly to questions posed by the various crises, using all the nation's resources and in particular, all the data and capabilities of the health sector. Contingency plans must consider ethical aspects, and meet the needs of patients and families with a humanized approach. In circumstances of catastrophe, conflicts increase and require a bioethical response that allows the best decisions to be made, with the utmost respect for people's values. Rapid, efficient and truthful communication systems must be contained in a special project for this sector in critic circumstances. Finally, we believe that the creation of National Coordination Centers for major disasters and Public Health can contribute to better face the crises of the future.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Disasters , Forecasting , Humans , Pandemics , Public HealthABSTRACT
In this paper, I wish to examine what is meant by this new concept of "international solidarity”. The study will be presented in a number of sections, beginning with a general introduction that sets out the problem and emphasizes the importance of the document produced by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I will then detail certain general characteristics of the normative concept of solidarity and clarify a number of methodological assumptions and historical data. Thirdly, I will forward an in-depth discussion on the analysis of and debate around the concept of solidarity in its bioethical context, both prior to and during the pandemic. Finally, I will attempt to analyze what I call the ‘rhetoric of solidarity', as set forth by international organizations and political leaders of the Global North during the pandemic, understanding it as aid in the face of the morally objectionable global inequality and injustice caused by a number of factors, the principal one being the current system of patents imposed by the WTO and the conversion of vaccines into commodities and even ‘positional goods'.
ABSTRACT
Two experimental Ebola vaccines were deployed during the tenth Ebola epidemic (2018–20) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The first, the Ervebo vaccine manufactured by Merck, was used as part of a ring vaccination in the epicentre of the epidemic in North Kivu. In 2019, the prime- (Ad26.ZEBOV) and boost- (MVA-BN-Filo) vaccine manufactured by Johnson & Johnson (J&J) became the second vaccine against Ebola, deployed by the DRC-EB-001 vaccine trial in Goma, North Kivu. There was international debate as to the value and ethics of testing a second vaccine in an epidemic context. This article examines how this debate unfolded among actual and potential DRC-EB-001 trial participants in Goma. Drawing on ethnographic observation, interviews and focus groups, it explores how the trial was perceived and contested on the ground and situated in broader debates about the ethics of clinical trials, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. We illustrate how debates around the ethics of clinical research are not simply centred on bioethical principles but are inseparable from local political dynamics and broader contests about governance, inequality and exclusion.