Ethical Considerations for ECMO Treatment of Patients with Severe COVID-19

Characterized by high risk, high trauma and high consumption, Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) is an innovative technology that can be used as salvage therapy for COVID-19 patients. ECMO treatment can help restore patients??? cardiopulmonary function or can bridge their final treatment, including device implantation or organ transplantation. However, although ECMO saves some patients??? lives, it can also leave those with no chance of recovery in a medical dilemma. ECMO is thus controversial: it is criticized for technical failures and ineffective treatments, and its use raises questions about medical equity. This paper argues that the clinical application of ECMO technology should be based on a respect for the value of life and the will of patients, reasonably set therapeutic goals, acceptable withdrawal criteria, proper management of the conflict between patients??? desires and the medical dilemma, and the establishment of an ethical framework to control the limits of medical intervention.

Children as an afterthought during COVID-19: defining a child-inclusive ethical framework for pandemic policymaking.

BACKGROUND: Following the SARS pandemic, jurisdictions around the world began developing ethical resource allocation frameworks for future pandemics-one such framework was developed by Thompson and colleagues. While this framework offers a solid backbone upon which decision-makers can rest assured that their work is driven by rigorous ethical processes and principles, it fails to take into account the nuanced experiences and interests of children and youth (i.e., young people) in a pandemic context. The current COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity to re-examine this framework from young people's perspectives, informed by advances in childhood ethics and children's rights. MAIN BODY: In this paper, we revisit the Thompson et al. framework and propose adaptations to the ethical processes and values outlined therein. This work is informed by expertise in clinical ethics and literature related to impacts of COVID-19 and other pandemics on the health and well-being of children around the world, though with particular attention to Canada. During the processes of drafting this work, stakeholders were consulted-aligned with the approach used by Thompson and colleagues-to validate the interpretations provided. We also propose a new principle, namely practicability, to indicate the complex balance between what is possible and what is convenient that is required in ethically sound decisions in the context of services affecting young people. We outline and discuss the strengths and limitations of our work and indicate next steps for scholars in the areas of childhood studies and child health. CONCLUSION: Efforts to ensure frameworks are truly child-inclusive should be the status-quo, so pandemic impacts and policy implications can be considered in advance of emergency preparedness contexts.

Tracing app technology: an ethical review in the COVID-19 era and directions for post-COVID-19.

We conducted a systematic literature review on the ethical considerations of the use of contact tracing app technology, which was extensively implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rapid and extensive use of this technology during the COVID-19 pandemic, while benefiting the public well-being by providing information about people's mobility and movements to control the spread of the virus, raised several ethical concerns for the post-COVID-19 era. To investigate these concerns for the post-pandemic situation and provide direction for future events, we analyzed the current ethical frameworks, research, and case studies about the ethical usage of tracing app technology. The results suggest there are seven essential ethical considerations-privacy, security, acceptability, government surveillance, transparency, justice, and voluntariness-in the ethical use of contact tracing technology. In this paper, we explain and discuss these considerations and how they are needed for the ethical usage of this technology. The findings also highlight the importance of developing integrated guidelines and frameworks for implementation of such technology in the post- COVID-19 world. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10676-022-09659-6.

Professional Oversight of Emergency-Use Interventions and Monitoring Systems: Ethical Guidance From the Singapore Experience of COVID-19.

High degrees of uncertainty and a lack of effective therapeutic treatments have characterized the COVID-19 pandemic and the provision of drug products outside research settings has been controversial. International guidelines for providing patients with experimental interventions to treat infectious diseases outside of clinical trials exist but it is unclear if or how they should apply in settings where clinical trials and research are strongly regulated. We propose the Professional Oversight of Emergency-Use Interventions and Monitoring System (POEIMS) as an alternative pathway based on guidance developed for the ethical provision of experimental interventions to treat COVID-19 in Singapore. We support our proposal with justifications that establish moral duties for physicians to record outcomes data and for institutions to establish monitoring systems for reporting information on safety and effectiveness to the relevant authorities. Institutions also have a duty to support generation of evidence for what constitutes good clinical practice and so should ensure the unproven intervention is made the subject of research studies that can contribute to generalizable knowledge as soon as practical and that physicians remain committed to supporting learning health systems. We outline key differences between POEIMS and other pathways for the provision of experimental interventions in public health emergencies.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection Challenge Experiments in Nonhuman Primates: An Ethical Perspective.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has stimulated massive investment in biomedical research with the aims of understanding the disease and developing effective vaccine and therapeutic interventions. What role should animal research play in this scientific endeavor? Both the urgency to evaluate candidate interventions for human use and growing societal concern about ethical treatment of (nonhuman) animals put into question the justifiability of animal research as a precursor to clinical trials. Yet forgoing animal research in the rush to undertake human testing might expose human research participants to unacceptable risks. In this article, we apply a recently developed framework of principles for animal research ethics in exploring ethical questions raised by a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection challenge experiment involving rhesus macaques, which evaluated the protective efficacy of the mRNA-1273 vaccine that was recently approved for emergency use. Our aim is to illuminate the ethical issues while introducing, and illustrating the use of, the framework.

Advocating for Greater Inclusion of Marginalized and Forgotten Populations in COVID19 Vaccine Rollouts.

Objectives: Many countries recently approved a number of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. There is therefore growing optimism around the world about their future availability and effectiveness. However, supplies are likely to be limited and restricted to certain categories of individuals, at least initially. Thus, governments have suggested prioritization schemes to allocate such limited supplies. The majority of such schemes are said to be developed to safeguard the weakest sections of society; that is, healthcare personnel and the elderly. Methods: In this work, we analyse three case studies (incarcerated people; homeless people, asylum seekers and undocumented migrants). We propose a bioethical argument that frames the discussion by describing the salient facts about each of the three populations and then argue that these characteristics entail inclusion and prioritization in the queue for vaccination in their country of residence. Results: Through an analysis informed by ethical considerations revolving around the concepts of fairness and equality, we try to raise awareness of these important issues among decision makers. Conclusion: Our goal is to advocate for the development of more inclusive policies and frameworks in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allocation and, in general, in all scenarios in which there is a shortage of optimal care and treatments.

Whom Should Be Saved? A Proposed Ethical Framework for Allocating Scarce Medical Resources to COVID-19 Patients Using Fuzzy Logic.

COVID-19 is a global pandemic that affected the everyday life activities of billions around the world. It is an unprecedented crisis that the modern world had never experienced before. It mainly affected the economic state and the health care system. The rapid and increasing number of infected patients overwhelmed the healthcare infrastructure, which causes high demand and, thus, shortage in the required staff members and medical resources. This shortage necessitates practical and ethical suggestions to guide clinicians and medical centers when allocating and reallocating scarce resources for and between COVID-19 patients. Many studies proposed a set of ethical principles that should be applied and implemented to address this problem. In this study, five different ethical principles based on the most commonly recommended principles and aligned with WHO guidelines and state-of-the-art practices proposed in the literature were identified, and recommendations for their applications were discussed. Furthermore, a recent study highlighted physicians' propensity to apply a combination of more than one ethical principle while prioritizing the medical resource allocation. Based on that, an ethical framework that is based on Fuzzy inference systems was proposed. The proposed framework's input is the identified ethical principles, and the output is a weighted value (per patient). This value can be used as a rank or a priority factor given to the patients based on their condition and other relevant information, like the severity of their disease status. The main idea of implementing fuzzy logic in the framework is to combine more than one principle when calculating the weighted value, hence mimicking what some physicians apply in practice. Moreover, the framework's rules are aligned with the identified ethical principles. This framework can help clinicians and guide them while making critical decisions to allocate/reallocate the limited medical resources during the current COVID-19 crisis and future similar pandemics.

Mandating the Use of Proximity Tracking Apps During Coronavirus Disease 2019: Ethical Justifications.

The rise of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a digital world has expectedly called upon technologies, such as wearables and mobile devices, to work in conjunction with public health interventions to tackle the pandemic. One significant example of this integration is the deployment of proximity tracking apps on smartphones to enhance traditional contact tracing methods. Many countries have adopted proximity tracking apps; however, there is a large degree of global differentiation in the voluntariness of the apps. Further, the concept of a mandatory policy-forcing individuals to use the apps-has been met with ethical concerns (e.g., privacy and liberty). While ethical considerations surrounding deployment have been put forth, such as by the World Health Organization, ethical justifications for a mandatory policy are lacking. Here, we use the Faden-Shebaya framework, which was formed to justify public health interventions, to determine if the compulsory use of proximity tracking apps is ethically appropriate. We show that while theoretically justified, due to the current state of proximity tracking applications and societal factors, it is difficult to defend a mandatory policy in practice.

Ethical Responses to the Covid-19 Pandemic: Implications for the Ethos and Practice of Anatomy as a Health Science Discipline.

The move of much anatomy teaching online in response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been successfully implemented within very short time frames. This has necessitated a high degree of dependence upon the use of digitized cadaveric resources, has entailed immense workload demands on staff, and has disrupted students' studies. These educational exigencies have been accompanied by ethical uncertainties for a discipline centered on study of the dead human body. An ethical framework for anatomy is suggested based on the principles of equal concern and respect, minimization of harm, fairness, and reciprocity, in which all staff and students are to be treated with respect and as moral equals. A series of ethical obligations are proposed as a means of maintaining the ethos of anatomy, coping with the suspension of body donation, providing adequate resources, and responding to increased dependence upon external providers. Good academic practice raises more general obligations stemming from the welfare of students, the increased workload of staff, and checking on online assessment and invigilation. As anatomists respond to the educational and ethical lessons prompted by this pandemic, they should plan for future disruptions to normal work patterns by adopting a sustainable and equitable course of action.