A shared humanity: COVID capitalism and the future of the health care ethics

The tension between the economy and health care in the United States was on full display during the COVID-19 pandemic and continues to raise uncomfortable questions for the medical and faith communities. Chief among the issues raised is the inequality that emerged between the healthy and vulnerable, which caused vocal proponents to encourage the vulnerable to sacrifice their lives in order for the economy to continue unfettered by the pandemic. This article explores how "COVID capitalism " constricted the ability of the health care community to execute its duties morally and promote the health and well-being of the nation's elderly. It argues that the practices of vulnerability and dependence, viewed through the cardinal virtues, unseat the economic reason at the heart of COVID capitalism and promote health as a central good alongside economic well-being.

Covid-19 pandemic and future global catastrophic risks as a challenge for health-care ethics

Purpose>Current covid-19 pandemic challenges health-care ethics. Ones of the most important challenges are medical resources allocation and a duty to treat, often addressed to medical personnel. This paper suggests that there are good reasons to rethink our health-care ethics for future global catastrophic risks. Current pandemic shows how challenging can be an issue of resources allocation even in a relatively small kind of catastrophic event such as covid-19 pandemic. In this paper, the authors show that any future existential bigger catastrophe may require new guidelines for the allocation of medical resources. The idea of assisted dying is considered as a hypothetical scenario.Design/methodology/approach>This is a conceptual work based on conceptual analysis at the intersection of risk studies, health-care ethics and future studies. This study builds the argument on the assumption that the covid-19 pandemic should be treated as a sort of global catastrophic risk. Findings show that there are no such attempts in currently published peer-reviewed academic literature. This is crucial concept for the meta-analysis. This study shows why and how current pandemic can be interpreted in terms of global catastrophic risk even if, literally, covid-19 does not meet all criteria required in the risk studies to be called a global catastrophe.Findings>We can expect an emergence of discriminatory selection policy which will require some actions taken by future patients like, for example, genetic engineering. But even then it is inevitable that there will still be a large number of survivors who require medical assistance, which they have no chance of receiving. This is why this study has considered the concept of assisted dying understood as an official protocol for health-care ethics and resources allocation policy in the case of emergency situations. Possibly more controversial idea discussed in this paper is an idea of assisted dying for those who cannot receive required medical help. Such procedure could be applied in a mass-scale during a global catastrophic event.Research limitations/implications>Philosophers and ethicists should identify and study all possible pros and cons of this discrimination rule. As this study’s findings suggested above, a reliable point of reference is the concept of substantial human enhancement. Human enhancement as such, widely debated, should be studied in that specific context of discrimination of patients in an access to limited medical resources. Last but not least, scientific community should study the concept of assisted dying which could be applied for those survivors who have no chance of obtaining medical care. Such criteria and concepts as cost-benefit analysis, the ethics of quality of life, autonomy of patients and duty of medical personnel should be considered.Practical implications>Politicians and policymakers should prepare protocols for global catastrophes where these discrimination criteria would have to be applied. The same applies to the development of medical robotics aimed at replacing human health-care personnel. We assume that this is important implication for practical policy in healthcare. Our prediction, however plausible, is not a good scenario for humanity. But given this realistic development trajectory, we should do everything possible to prevent the need for the discriminatory rules in medical care described above.Originality/value>This study offers the idea of assisted dying as a health-care policy in emergency situations. The authors expect that next future global catastrophes – looking at the current pandemic only as a mild prelude – will force a radical change in moral values and medical standards. New criteria of selection and discrimination will be perceived as much more exclusivist and unfair than criteria applied today.

Value choices in European COVID-19 vaccination schedules: how vaccination prioritization differs from other forms of priority setting.

With the limited initial availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the first months of 2021, decision-makers had to determine the order in which different groups were prioritized. Our aim was to find out what normative approaches to the allocation of scarce preventive resources were embedded in the national COVID-19 vaccination schedules. We systematically reviewed and compared prioritization regulations in 27 members of the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Israel. We differentiated between two types of priority categories: groups that have increased infection fatality rate (IFR) compared to the average for the general population and groups chosen because their members experience increased risk of being infected (ROI). Our findings show a clear trend: all researched schedules prioritized criteria referring to IFR (being over 65 years old and coexisting health conditions) over the ROI criteria (eg occupation and housing conditions). This is surprising since, in the context of treatment, it is common and justifiable to adopt different allocation principles (eg introducing a saving more life-year approach or prioritizing younger patients). We discuss how utilitarian, prioritarian, and egalitarian principles can be applied to interpret normative differences between the allocation of curative and preventive interventions.

Professionalism revisited during the pandemics of our time: COVID-19 and racism.

In this article the authors review the current-day definition of professionalism through the lens of the two ongoing pandemics: COVID-19 and racism. The pandemics have led to contemporary practice-related questions, such as: does professionalism entail that health care providers (HCP) be compelled to treat patients without PPE or if patients refuse to wear masks? And what role do HCP play in society when confronted with glaring health disparities and police brutality? The authors propose using care ethics as a theory to view professionalism, as it takes into account broadly encompassing relationships between HCP and society, history and context. Professionalism viewed through a care ethics lens would require professionalism definitions to be expanded to allow for interventions, i.e., not just refrain from doing harm but actively interfere or take action if wrong is being witnessed. Principles related to the primacy of patient welfare need to be re-addressed to prevent systematic self-sacrifice which results in harm to HCP and burnout. Mature care should be a characteristic of professionalism ensuring that HCP care for the sick but be practically wise, highlighting the importance of balancing too little and too much care for self and others. Professionalism needs to be viewed as a bi-directional relational exchange, with society demonstrating solidarity with those providing care. Additionally, given the scale of health disparities, simply stating that HCP need to work towards social justice oversimplifies the problem. Professionalism needs to encompass incorporating critical action and critical pedagogy into health care training and the health care profession to demonstrate solidarity with those impacted by racism.