Tackling the COVID elective surgical backlog: Prioritising need, benefit or equality?

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.

Visitor restrictions in hospitals during infectious disease outbreaks: An ethical approach to policy development and requests for exemptions.

In this paper, we explore the ethics of restricting visitation to hospitals during an infectious disease outbreak. We aim to answer three questions: What are the features of an ethically justified hospital visitor restriction policy? Should policies include scope for case-by-case exemptions? How should decisions about exemptions be made? Based on a critical interpretive review of the existing ethical literature on visitor restrictions, we argue that an ethically justified hospital visitor restriction policy has the following features: proportionality, comprehensiveness, harm mitigation, exemptions for specific patient populations, visitation decisions made separately from a patient's treating clinicians, transparency, and consistency in application. We also argue that an ethical policy ought to include scope for case-by-case exemptions for individual patients. We propose a process for ethical decision-making that provides a shared language and structure to decrease the risks and burdens of decision-making when clinicians or managers are considering requests for exemptions.

Public voices on tie-breaking criteria and underlying values in COVID-19 triage protocols to access critical care: a scoping review.

Background: To reduce the arbitrariness in the allocation of rare resources in intensive care units (ICU) in the context of the pandemic, tiebreakers were considered in some COVID-19 triage algorithms. They were also contemplated to facilitate the tragic decisions of healthcare workers when faced with two patients with similar prognosis and only one ICU bed available. Little is known about the public's perspective on tiebreakers. Objectives: To consolidate the available scientific literature on public consultations, particularly on tiebreakers and their underlying values. Also, to obtain an overview of the key arguments presented by the participating public and to identify potential gaps related to this topic. Methods: The steps described by Arksey and O'Malley was the preferred method to our approach. Seven electronic databases were searched from January 2020 to April 2022, using keywords for each database: PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, EBM reviews, CINAHL complete. We also searched in Google and Google Scholar, and in the references of the articles found. Our analysis was mainly qualitative. A thematic analysis was performed to consider the public's perspectives on tiebreakers and their underlying values, according to these studies. Results: Of 477 publications found, 20 were selected. They carried out public consultations through various methods: surveys (80%), interviews (20%), deliberative processes (15%) and others (5%) in various countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, and United States. Five themes emerged from our analysis. The public favored the life cycle (50%) and absolute age (45%) as a tiebreaker. Other values considered important were reciprocity, solidarity, equality, instrumental value, patient merit, efficiency, and stewardship. Among the new findings were a preference for patient nationality and those affected by COVID-19. Conclusions: There is a preference for favoring younger patients over older patients when there is a tie between similar patients, with a slight tendency to favor intergenerational equity. Variability was found in the public's perspectives on tiebreakers and their values. This variability was related to socio-cultural and religious factors. More studies are needed to understand the public's perspective on tiebreakers. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44250-023-00027-9.

Ethical analysis examining the prioritisation of living donor transplantation in times of healthcare rationing.

The transplant community has faced unprecedented challenges balancing risks of performing living donor transplants during the COVID-19 pandemic with harms of temporarily suspending these procedures. Decisions regarding postponement of living donation stem from its designation as an elective procedure, this despite that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services categorise transplant procedures as tier 3b (high medical urgency-do not postpone). In times of severe resource constraints, health systems may be operating under crisis or contingency standards of care. In this manuscript, the United Network for Organ Sharing Ethics Workgroup explores prioritisation of living donation where health systems operate under contingency standards of care and provide a framework with recommendations to the transplant community on how to approach living donation in these circumstances.To guide the transplant community in future decisions, this analysis suggests that: (1) living donor transplants represent an important option for individuals with end-stage liver and kidney disease and should not be suspended uniformly under contingency standards, (2) exposure risk to SARS-CoV-2 should be balanced with other risks, such as exposure risks at dialysis centres. Because many of these risks are not quantifiable, donors and recipients should be included in discussions on what constitutes acceptable risk, (3) transplant hospitals should strive to maintain a critical transplant workforce and avoid diverting expertise, which could negatively impact patient preparedness for transplant, (4) transplant hospitals should consider implementing protocols to ensure early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections and discuss these measures with donors and recipients in a process of shared decision-making.

The 'haves' and 'have-nots' of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic: the ethics of emerging inequalities amongst healthcare workers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities, including among the healthcare workforce. Based on recent literature and drawing on our experiences of working in operating theatres and critical care in the UK's National Health Service during the pandemic, we review the role of personal protective equipment and consider the ethical implications of its design, availability and provision at a time of unprecedented demand. Several important inequalities have emerged, driven by factors such as individuals purchasing their own personal protective equipment (either out of choice or to address a lack of provision), inconsistencies between guidelines issued by different agencies and organisations, and the standardised design and procurement of equipment required to protect a diverse healthcare workforce. These, we suggest, have resulted largely because of a lack of appropriate pandemic planning and coordination, as well as insufficient appreciation of the significance of equipment design for the healthcare setting. As with many aspects of the pandemic, personal protective equipment has created and revealed inequalities driven by economics, gender, ethnicity and professional influence, creating a division between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' of personal protective equipment. As the healthcare workforce continues to cope with ongoing waves of COVID-19, and with the prospect of more pandemics in the future, it is vital that these inequalities are urgently addressed, both through academic analysis and practical action.

Promoting racial equity in COVID-19 resource allocation.

Due to COVID-19's strain on health systems across the globe, triage protocols determine how to allocate scarce medical resources with the worthy goal of maximising the number of lives saved. However, due to racial biases and long-standing health inequities, the common method of ranking patients based on impersonal numeric representations of their morbidity is associated with disproportionately pronounced racial disparities. In response, policymakers have issued statements of solidarity. However, translating support into responsive COVID-19 policy is rife with complexity. Triage does not easily lend itself to race-based exceptions. Reordering triage queues based on an individual patient's racial affiliation has been considered but may be divisive and difficult to implement. And while COVID-19 hospital policies may be presented as rigidly focused on saving the most lives, many make exceptions for those deemed worthy by policymakers such as front-line healthcare workers, older physicians, pregnant women and patients with disabilities. These exceptions demonstrate creativity and ingenuity-hallmarks of policymakers' abilities to flexibly respond to urgent societal concerns-which should also be extended to patients of colour. This paper dismantles common arguments against the confrontation of racial inequity within COVID-19 triage protocols, highlights concerns related to existing proposals and proposes a new paradigm to increase equity when allocating scarce COVID-19 resources.

Undue Influence from the Family in Declining COVID-19 Vaccination and Treatment for the Elderly Patient.

This paper examines a patient with borderline mental capacity, where the healthcare team is conflicted about how to proceed. This case demonstrates the complicated intersection between undue influence and mental capacity, allowing us to explore how the law is applied in clinical practice. Patients have the right to decline or accept medical treatments offered to them. In Singapore, family members perceive a right to be involved in the decision-making process for sick and elderly patients. Elderly patients, dependent on mainly family members for care and support, sometimes submit to their overbearing influence resulting in decisions that fail to protect the patients' own best interests. However, the clinicians' own well-intentioned influence, driven by a desire for the best medical outcome can also be undue, and neither influence should seek to be a substitution for the patient's decision. Following Re BKR [2015] SGCA 26, we are now obliged to examine how mental capacity can be affected by undue influence. A lack of capacity can be found when a patient fails to appreciate the presence of undue influence or is susceptible to undue influence due to their mental impairment causing their will to be overborne. This then paves the way for the health care team to decide based on best interests, because the patient is determined to be lacking in mental capacity.

Lessons learned from the Last Gift study: ethical and practical challenges faced while conducting HIV cure-related research at the end of life.

The Last Gift is an observational HIV cure-related research study conducted with people with HIV at the end of life (EOL) at the University of California San Diego. Participants agree to voluntarily donate blood and other biospecimens while living and their bodies for a rapid research autopsy postmortem to better understand HIV reservoir dynamics throughout the entire body. The Last Gift study was initiated in 2017. Since then, 30 volunteers were enrolled who are either (1) terminally ill with a concomitant condition and have a prognosis of 6 months or less or (2) chronically ill with multiple comorbidities and nearing the EOL.Multiple ethical and logistical challenges have been revealed during this time; here, we share our lessons learnt and ethical analysis. Issues relevant to healthcare research include surrogate informed consent, personal and professional boundaries, challenges posed conducting research in a pandemic, and clinician burnout and emotional support. Issues more specific to EOL and postmortem research include dual roles of clinical care and research teams, communication between research personnel and clinical teams, legally required versus rapid research autopsy, identification of next of kin/loved ones and issues of inclusion. Issues specific to the Last Gift include logistics of body donation and rapid research autopsy, and disposition of the body as a study benefit.We recommend EOL research teams to have clear provisions around surrogate informed consent, rotate personnel to maintain boundaries, limit direct contact with staff associated with clinical care and have a clear plan for legally required versus research autopsies, among other recommendations.

Different approach to medical decision-making in difficult circumstances: Kittay's Ethics of Care.

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated advances in bioethical approaches to medical decision-making. This paper develops an alternative method for rationing care during periods of resource scarcity. Typical approaches to triaging rely on utilitarian calculations; however, this approach introduces a problematic antihumanist sentiment, inviting the proposition of alternative schemata. As such, we suggest a feminist approach to medical decision-making, founded in and expanding upon the framework of Eva Kittay's Ethics of Care. We suggest that this new structure addresses the issue of medical decision-making during times of resource scarcity just as well as pure utilitarian approaches while better attending to their significant theoretical concerns, forming a coherent alternative to the current bioethical consensus.

Ethical allocation of future COVID-19 vaccines.

The COVID-19 pandemic will likely recede only through development and distribution of an effective vaccine. Although there are many unknowns surrounding COVID-19 vaccine development, vaccine demand will likely outstrip early supply, making prospective planning for vaccine allocation critical for ensuring the ethical distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. Here, we propose three central goals for COVID-19 vaccination campaigns: to reduce morbidity and mortality, to minimise additional economic and societal burdens related to the pandemic and to narrow unjust health inequalities. We evaluate five prioritisation approaches, assess their likely impact on advancing the three goals of vaccine allocation and identify open scientific questions that may alter their outcomes. We argue that no single prioritisation approach will advance all three goals. Instead, we propose a multipronged approach that considers the risk of serious COVID-19 illness, instrumental value and the risk of transmission, and is guided by future research on COVID-19-specific clinical and vaccine characteristics. While we focus this assessment on the USA, our analysis can inform allocation in other contexts.

Ethical uncertainty and COVID-19: exploring the lived experiences of senior physicians at a major medical centre.

Given the wide-reaching and detrimental impact of COVID-19, its strain on healthcare resources, and the urgent need for-sometimes forced-public health interventions, thorough examination of the ethical issues brought to light by the pandemic is especially warranted. This paper aims to identify some of the complex moral dilemmas faced by senior physicians at a major medical centre in Saudi Arabia, in an effort to gain a better understanding of how they navigated ethical uncertainty during a time of crisis. This qualitative study uses a semistructured interview approach and reports the findings of 16 interviews. The study finds that participants were motivated by a profession-based moral obligation to provide care during the toughest and most uncertain times of the pandemic. Although participants described significant moral dilemmas during their practice, very few identified challenges as ethical in nature, and in turn, none sought formal ethics support. Rather, participants took on the burden of resolving ethical challenges themselves-whenever possible-rationalising oft fraught decisions by likening their experiences to wartime action or by minimising attention to the moral. In capturing these accounts, this paper ultimately contemplates what moral lessons can, and must be, learnt from this experience.

Nurses' Perceptions of Ethical Conflicts When Caring for Patients with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused ethical challenges and dilemmas in care decisions colliding with nurses' ethical values. This study sought to understand the perceptions and ethical conflicts faced by nurses working on the frontline during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and the main coping strategies. A qualitative phenomenological study was carried out following Giorgi's descriptive phenomenological approach. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews until data saturation. The theoretical sample included 14 nurses from inpatient and intensive care units during the first and second waves of the pandemic. An interview script was used to guide the interviews. Data were analyzed following Giorgi's phenomenological method using Atlas-Ti software. Two themes were identified: (1) ethical conflicts on a personal and professional level; and (2) coping strategies (active and autonomous learning, peer support and teamwork, catharsis, focusing on care, accepting the pandemic as just another work situation, forgetting the bad situations, valuing the positive reinforcement, and humanizing the situation). The strong professional commitment, teamwork, humanization of care, and continuous education have helped nurses to deal with ethical conflicts. It is necessary to address ethical conflicts and provide psychological and emotional support for nurses who have experienced personal and professional ethical conflicts during COVID-19.

Rationing in pediatric hospitalizations during COVID-19: A step back to move forward

The latest Omicron variant of the novel coronavirus has itself created a novel situation—bringing attention to the topic of healthcare rationing among hospitalized pediatric patients. This may be the first time that many pediatricians, nurses, parents, and public health officials have been compelled to engage in uncomfortable discussions about the allocation of medical care/resources. Simply put, finite budgets, resources, and a dwindling healthcare workforce do not permit all patients to receive unlimited medical care. Triage and bedside rationing decisions are happening in a range of difficult everyday circumstances both implicitly and explicitly, but in ways not recognized by even the best ethically framed intentions. Clinicians and hospital administrators have largely been left on their own "to flatten the rationing curve” in hopes that resources never have to be explicitly rationed at their facility. Unfortunately, the downstream result is a misinformed and distrustful public (i.e. parents, guardians, and caregivers) filled with people who are already burdened with inflammatory pseudoscience narratives and deficits in health literacy. This paper aims to elevate a more thoughtful conversation about healthcare rationing by analyzing some existing ethical principles/framework developed for rationing decision making during previous emergency responses and drawing from the day-to-day clinical perspectives of a frontline pediatric acute care/hospitalist. © The Author(s) 2022.

Conspiracy theories and clinical decision-making.

When a patient's treatment decisions are the product of delusion, this is often taken as a paradigmatic case of undermined decisional capacity. That is to say, when a patient refuses treatment on the basis of beliefs that in no way reflect reality, clinicians and ethicists tend to agree that their refusal is not valid. During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, we have witnessed many patients refuse potentially life-saving interventions not based on delusion but on conspiracy beliefs. Importantly, many of the beliefs espoused by conspiracy theorists resemble delusions in a number of relevant ways. For instance, conspiracy beliefs often posit states of affairs that could not possibly exist in the world, they are recalcitrant in the face of disconfirming evidence, and they tend to put the believer in a state of paranoia. Given these similarities, how should we think about conspiracy theorists' capacity for making clinical decisions? In this paper, I attempt to answer this question by first offering an account of just what makes some set of beliefs count as a conspiracy theory. Second, I attempt to disambiguate conspiracy beliefs from delusions by exploring important conceptual and psychological features of both. Finally, I apply standard criteria for assessing a patient's decision-making capacity to instances of conspiracy beliefs and argue that, although the picture is muddy, there may be cases in which conspiracy beliefs undermine capacity. I end by exploring the implications that this might have for surrogate decision-making and addressing potential objections.

Children First, a Debate on the Restrictions to Tackle COVID-19.

Sometimes, when a public health disaster strikes, mandatory freedom-limiting restrictions must be enforced in order to save lives. During the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, the customary and necessary exchange of ideas in academia drastically changed in most countries, and the absence of debate on the restrictions enforced became evident. Now that the pandemic seems to be drawing to an end, the aim of this article is to spark clinical and public debate on the ethical issues concerning pediatric COVID-19 mandates in an attempt to analyze what happened. With theoretical reflection, and not empirical inquiry, we address the mitigation measures which proved detrimental to children despite being beneficial to other segments of the population. We focus on three key points: (i) the sacrifice of fundamental children's rights for the greater good, (ii) the feasibility of cost-benefit analyses to make public health decisions and restrictions which affect children, and (iii) to analyze the impediments to allowing children's voices to be heard concerning their medical treatment.

Impacts of the Early COVID-19 Pandemic on the Work of Bioethicists in Canada

Bioethics experts played a key role in ensuring a coherent ethical response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the fields of healthcare, public health, and scientific research in Canada. In the province of Quebec, a group of academic and practicing bioethicists met periodically in the early months of the pandemic to discuss approaches and solutions to ethical dilemmas encountered during the crisis. These meetings created the opportunity for a national survey of bioethics practitioners from different fields. The survey, in which forty-five Canadian bioethics practitioners (clinical ethicists, ethicist members of REBs and government health policy ethicists, or any bioethicist practicing outside of academia) participated, explored their concerns, challenges and opportunities during the first wave of the pandemic, with the objective of informing bioethics research about the difficulties experienced by bioethicists "in the field". Participants reported increased stress levels, increased workloads, and a greater proportion of their work being devoted to public health ethics. Most of their concerns focused on groups other than themselves, such as health professionals, patients, research participants, and people in vulnerable socio-economic situations. An optimism about the future of bioethics was noted due to an increased awareness of the importance of bioethics by the public and by health and research institutions.

A two-center pilot study on the effects of clinical ethics support on coercive measures in psychiatry.

BACKGROUND: The use of formal coercion such as seclusion, mechanical restraint, and forced medication is one of the most challenging and complex issues in mental health care, on the clinical, the legal, and the ethical level. Clinical ethics support aims at assisting healthcare practitioners in determining the morally most justifiable course of action in these situations. However, the effectiveness of clinical ethics support has hardly been studied so far. METHODS: Monthly moral case deliberation (MCD) was implemented in two acute wards of two different psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland. Frequency and intensity of coercion was measured on ward level (npatients = 405), and the Moral Attentiveness Scale, Knowledge on Coercion Scale, and Staff Attitudes towards Coercion Scale were applied on healthcare practitioner level (nHP = 46). Pre-post-comparisons were conducted using multi-level modeling where appropriate. RESULTS: After implementation of MCD, formal coercion was less frequent (particularly seclusion, small effect size; 9.6 vs. 16.7%, p = .034, Cramér's V = .105) and less intense (particularly mechanical restraint, large effect size; 86.8 ± 45.3 vs. 14.5 ± 12.1 h, exact p = .019, r = -.74), and approval for coercive measures among healthcare practitioners was lower when controlling for the number of MCD sessions attended. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical ethics support such as MCD may be a hitherto underutilized service for the reduction of coercion, complementing existing strategies and programs. Implementing clinical ethics support may help improve quality of care for persons suffering from severe mental illness.

Walls.

In a field that strives to care for patients and families together, what can palliative care clinicians do when patients' families are physically absent? The Covid-19 pandemic has put both literal and figurative walls between health care professionals and families. How health care workers respond to these disconnections might have a lasting impact on patients, on families, and on our practice. Recently, I saw this in the case of a patient our palliative care team was consulted to see. Mr. B was minimally responsive and dying from multisystem organ failure of unclear etiology. As in other cases during this pandemic, our team became a facilitator of interaction between the patient and the physically absent family, seeing an intimacy we normally would not, in this case, by being present while our intern held the phone to Mr. B's ear for an end-of-life call from his wife, son, and daughter. Such moments force us clinicians to be even more present for our families and patients, and they allow us to bear witness to the strength and sadness and love that we might otherwise miss.

Machine learning in medicine: should the pursuit of enhanced interpretability be abandoned?

We argue why interpretability should have primacy alongside empiricism for several reasons: first, if machine learning (ML) models are beginning to render some of the high-risk healthcare decisions instead of clinicians, these models pose a novel medicolegal and ethical frontier that is incompletely addressed by current methods of appraising medical interventions like pharmacological therapies; second, a number of judicial precedents underpinning medical liability and negligence are compromised when 'autonomous' ML recommendations are considered to be en par with human instruction in specific contexts; third, explainable algorithms may be more amenable to the ascertainment and minimisation of biases, with repercussions for racial equity as well as scientific reproducibility and generalisability. We conclude with some reasons for the ineludible importance of interpretability, such as the establishment of trust, in overcoming perhaps the most difficult challenge ML will face in a high-stakes environment like healthcare: professional and public acceptance.

Participatory Approach to Develop Evidence-Based Clinical Ethics Guidelines for the Care of COVID-19 Patients: A Mixed Method Study From Nepal.

During health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers face numerous ethical challenges while catering to the needs of patients in healthcare settings. Although the data recapitulating high-income countries ethics frameworks are available, the challenges faced by clinicians in resource-limited settings of low- and middle-income countries are not discussed widely due to a lack of baseline data or evidence. The Nepali healthcare system, which is chronically understaffed and underequipped, was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in its capacity to manage health services and resources for needy patients, leading to ethical dilemmas and challenges during clinical practice. This study aimed to develop a standard guideline that would address syndemic ethical dilemmas during clinical care of COVID-19 patients who are unable to afford standard-of-care. A mixed method study was conducted between February and June of 2021 in 12 government designated COVID-19 treatment hospitals in central Nepal. The draft guideline was discussed among the key stakeholders in the pandemic response in Nepal. The major ethical dilemmas confronted by the study participants (50 healthcare professionals providing patient care at COVID-19 treatment hospitals) could be grouped into five major pillars of ethical clinical practice: rational allocation of medical resources, updated treatment protocols that guide clinical decisions, standard-of-care regardless of patient's economic status, effective communication among stakeholders for prompt patient care, and external factors such as political and bureaucratic interference affecting ethical practice. This living clinical ethics guideline, which has been developed based on the local evidence and case stories of frontline responders, is expected to inform the policymakers as well as the decision-makers positioned at the concerned government units. These ethics guidelines could be endorsed with revisions by the concerned regulatory authorities for the use during consequent waves of COVID-19 and other epidemics that may occur in the future. Other countries affected by the pandemic could conduct similar studies to explore ethical practices in the local clinical and public health context.