Rationing, Responsibility, and Vaccination during COVID-19: A Conceptual Map.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of scarce healthcare resources consistently presented significant moral and practical challenges. While the importance of vaccines as a key pharmaceutical intervention to stem pandemic scarcity was widely publicized, a sizable proportion of the population chose not to vaccinate. In response, some have defended the use of vaccination status as a criterion for the allocation of scarce medical resources. In this paper, we critically interpret this burgeoning literature, and describe a framework for thinking about vaccine-sensitive resource allocation using the values of responsibility, reciprocity, and justice. Although our aim here is not to defend a single view of vaccine-sensitive resource allocation, we believe that attending critically with the diversity of arguments in favor (and against) vaccine-sensitivity reveals a number of questions that a vaccine-sensitive approach to allocation should answer in future pandemics.

Personal responsibility and transplant revisited: A case for assigning lower priority to American vaccine refusers.

Priority for solid organ transplant generally does not consider the underlying cause of the need for transplantation. This paper argues that a distinctive set of factors justify assigning lower priority to willfully unvaccinated individuals who require transplant as a result of suffering from COVID-19. These factors include the personal responsibility of the patients for their own condition and the public outrage likely to ensue if willfully unvaccinated patients receive organs at the expense of vaccinated ones. The paper then proposes a three-prong test for similar deviations from the current allocation standard that incorporates patient responsibility, foreseeability and avoidability, and the frequency of the occurrence.

Between Usual and Crisis Phases of a Public Health Emergency: The Mediating Role of Contingency Measures.

Much of the sustained attention on pandemic preparedness has focused on the ethical justification for plans for the "crisis" phase of a surge when, despite augmentation efforts, the demand for life-saving resources outstrips supply. The ethical frameworks that should guide planning and implementation of the "contingency" phase of a public health emergency are less well described. The contingency phase is when strategies to augment staff, space, and supplies are systematically deployed to forestall critical resource scarcity, reduce disproportionate harm to patients and health care providers, and provide patient care that remains functionally equivalent to conventional practice. We describe an ethical framework to inform planning and implementation for COVID-19 contingency surge responses and apply this framework to 3 use cases. Examining the unique ethical challenges of this mediating phase will facilitate proactive ethics conversations about healthcare operations during the contingency phase and ideally lead to ethically stronger health care practices.

Ethical Challenges Arising in the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Overview from the Association of Bioethics Program Directors (ABPD) Task Force.

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised a host of ethical challenges, but key among these has been the possibility that health care systems might need to ration scarce critical care resources. Rationing policies for pandemics differ by institution, health system, and applicable law. Most seem to agree that a patient's ability to benefit from treatment and to survive are first-order considerations. However, there is debate about what clinical measures should be used to make that determination and about other factors that might be ethically appropriate to consider. In this paper, we discuss resource allocation and several related ethical challenges to the healthcare system and society, including how to define benefit, how to handle informed consent, the special needs of pediatric patients, how to engage communities in these difficult decisions, and how to mitigate concerns of discrimination and the effects of structural inequities.

COVID in NYC: What We Could Do Better.

New York City hospitals expanded resources to an unprecedented extent in response to the COVID pandemic. Thousands of beds, ICU beds, staff members, and ventilators were rapidly incorporated into hospital systems. Nonetheless, this historic public health disaster still created scarcities and the need for formal crisis standards of care. These were not available to NY clinicians because of the state's failure to implement, with or without revision, long-standing guidance documents intended for just such a pandemic. The authors argue that public health plans for disasters should be well-funded and based on available research and expertise. Communities should insist that political representatives demonstrate responsible leadership by implementing and updating as needed, crisis standards of care. Finally, surge requirements should address the needs of both those expected to survive and those who will not, by expanding palliative care and other resources for the dying.