The promises and limitations of codes of medical ethics as instruments of policy change.

Codes of medical ethics (codes) are part of a longstanding tradition in which physicians publicly state their core values and commitments to patients, peers, and the public. However, codes are not static. Using the historical evolution of the Canadian Medical Association's Code of Ethics as an illustrative case, we argue that codes are living, socio-historically situated documents that comprise a mix of prescriptive and aspirational content. Reflecting their socio-historical situation, we can expect the upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic to prompt calls to revise codes. Indeed, Alex John London has argued in favour of specific modifications to the World Medical Association's International Code of Medical Ethics (which has since been revised) in light of moral and scientific failures that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responding to London, we address the more general question: should codes be modified to reflect lessons drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic or future such upheavals? We caution that codes face limitations as instruments of policy change because they are inherently interpretive and 'multivocal', that is, they usually underdetermine or provide more than one answer to the question, 'What should I do now?' Nonetheless, as both prescriptive and aspirational documents, codes also serve as tools for reflection and deliberation-collective practices that are necessary to engaging with and addressing the moral and scientific uncertainties inherent to medicine.

Nursing ethics in an era of pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The ANA Code of Ethics for Nurses, regularly revised since 1896, may not provide guidance in an era of pandemic and sociopolitical unrest. PURPOSE: This study explored whether the Code of Ethics comprehensively address current nursing challenges. METHODS: 23 nurses participated in six Zoom focus groups to discuss whether provisions were applicable to their current practice. An iterative approach was used to review transcripts independently and then merge findings to identify ethical themes. FINDINGS: Provisions 4, 6, and 8 were most relevant. None of the provisions addressed the guilt secondary to isolating patients from support systems and not being "on the front lines" of COVID care. DISCUSSION: The co-occurring crises of COVID-19 and social unrest created an ethical crisis for many nurses. The Code of Ethics provided a useful guide for framing discussion and formulating strategies for change, but did not eliminate distress during a time of novel challenges.

Journalistic ethics and Covid-19: an analysis of deontological codes / Ética periodística y Covid-19: análisis de contenido de los códigos deontológicos / Ética jornalística e Covid-19: análise de conteúdo de códigos deontológicos

Esta investigación realiza un análisis de contenido de 103 códigos de ética periodística de todo el mundo para comprobar su adaptación a las circunstancias derivadas de la pandemia Covid-1٩. A partir de siete recomendaciones formuladas por la Ethical Journalism Network (EJN), se analiza su presencia o ausencia en los códigos. Los resultados muestran una presencia desigual de los principios y diferencias importantes entre los códigos. Ninguno de ellos comprende las siete recomendaciones y solo uno asume seis de ellas. Por el contrario, 17 códigos contienen únicamente una recomendación y dos de ellos no recogen ninguna. Se concluye que las recomendaciones de la EJN más presentes en los códigos se relacionan con principios muy asentados en la ética periodística que dependen habitualmente de la fecha de actualización. Se propone incorporar secciones específicas sobre salud a los códigos. (AU)

This article presents the results of a content analysis of 103 journalistic codes of ethics throughout the world conducted to test the adaptation of these codes to Covid-19 pandemic. Based on seven recommendations formulated by the Ethical Journalism Network (EJN), we analyze the presence or absence of each principle. The findings show an uneven presence of the principles and important differences across the codes. None of the codes cover the seven recommendations and just one addressed six of them. In contrast, 17 codes contain only one recommendation and two do not contain any. The EJN recommendations that are most present in the codes address well-established principles in journalistic ethics. The year of the latest update of the code is also a determining factor. Specific sections on health should be incorporated into the codes. (AU)

Esse artigo desenvolve uma análise de conteúdo de 103 códigos jornalísticos de ética em todo o mundo para testar sua adaptação às circunstâncias da Covid-19. Com base nas sete recomendações formuladas pela Ethical Journalism Network (EJN), analisa a presença ou ausência de cada princípio. Os resultados mostram uma presença desigual de princípios e importantes diferenças entre os códigos. Nenhum deles entende as sete recomendações e apenas uma assume seis delas. Em contraste, 17 códigos contêm apenas uma recomendação e dois deles não contêm nenhum. Conclui-se que as recomendações da EJN mais presentes nos códigos dizem respeito a princípios muito estabelecidos na ética jornalística. O ano da última atualização do código também se torna um fator determinante. Propõe-se incorporar seções específicas de saúde nos códigos. (AU)

National Guidelines for Ethics Committees Reviewing Biomedical & Health Research during COVID-19 Pandemic: An analysis.

The world currently faces an unprecedented pandemic outbreak of coronavirus disease (Covid-19). The novel nature of the virus and very high infection rates have not only increased the urgency to find a vaccine or cure but have also led to drastic changes in the mode of conduct of research. Thus, the Indian Council of Medical Research has developed the "National Guidelines for Ethics Committees Reviewing Biomedical & Health Research during Covid-19 Pandemic" for guidance during the review of research. Here, we attempt to analyse the strengths and limitations of these guidelines to assess if the unique ethical challenges faced during research in the current situation are adequately identified and addressed and if foundational values and principles of research ethics have been taken into account in these guidelines.

Antiracist Praxis in Public Health: A Call for Ethical Reflections.

The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed myriad social, economic, and health inequities that disproportionately burden populations that have been made medically or socially vulnerable. Inspired by state and local governments that declared racism a public health crisis or emergency, the Anti-Racism in Public Health Act of 2020 reflects a shifting paradigm in which racism is considered a social determinant of health. Indeed, health inequities fundamentally rooted in structural racism have been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, which calls for the integration of antiracist praxis to promote ethical public health research processes. This commentary describes ways in which antiracist praxis-which emphasizes empowerment of traditionally marginalized populations-offers strategies to explicitly address power imbalance, stigmatization, and other consequences of structural racism in public health research.

HIV prevention research and COVID-19: putting ethics guidance to the test.

BACKGROUND: Critical public health measures implemented to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have disrupted health research worldwide, including HIV prevention research. While general guidance has been issued for the responsible conduct of research in these challenging circumstances, the contours of the dueling COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS pandemics raise some critical ethical issues for HIV prevention research. In this paper, we use the recently updated HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) Ethics Guidance Document (EGD) to situate and analyze key ethical challenges related to the conduct of HIV prevention research during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as identify potential areas for refinement of the guidance document based on this unprecedented state of affairs. MAIN BODY: Necessary actions taken for HIV prevention research studies due to the COVID-19 pandemic involve an array of ethical issues including those related to: (1) risk mitigation; (2) behavior change; (3) compounding vulnerability; (4) community engagement; (5) trial reopening; and 6) shifting research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of the dueling HIV and COVID-19 global pandemics, research teams and sponsors must be nimble in responding to the rapidly changing environment by being sensitive to the associated ethical issues. The HTPN EGD provides a rich set of tools to help identify, analyze and address many of these issues. At the same time, future refinements of the HPTN EGD and other research ethics guidance could be strengthened by providing explicit advice regarding the ethical issues associated with disrupted research and the reopening of studies. In addition, additional consideration should be given to appropriately balancing domains of risk (e.g., physical versus social), addressing the vulnerability of research staff and community partners, and responding to un-anticipatable ancillary care needs of participants and communities. Appropriately addressing these issues will necessitate conceptual work, which would benefit from the careful documentation of the actual ethical issues encountered in research, the strategies implemented to overcome them, and their success in doing so. Throughout all of these efforts, it is critical to remember that the HIV pandemic not be forgotten in the rush to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Covid-19, ethical nursing management and codes of conduct: An analysis.

The conduct of nurse managers, and health service managers more widely, has been subject to scrutiny and critique because of high-profile organisational failures in healthcare. This raises concerns about the practice of nursing management and the use of codes of professional and managerial conduct. Some responses to such failures seem to assume that codes of conduct will ensure or at least increase the likelihood that ethical management will be practised. Codes of conduct are general principles and rules of normative standards, including ethical standards, and guides for action of agents in particular roles. Nurse managers seem to stride two roles. Contra some accounts of the roles of a professional (nurse) and that of a manager, it is claimed that there is no intrinsic incompatibility of the roles though there is always the possibility that it could become so and likewise for codes of conduct. Codes of conduct can be used to support nurse managers in making practical decisions via an 'outside in' approach with an emphasis on the use of principles and an 'inside out' approach with an emphasis on the agent's character. It is claimed that both approaches are necessary, especially as guides to ethical action. However, neither is sufficient for action because judgement and choice will always be required (principles always underdetermine action) as will a conducive environment that positively influences good judgement by being supportive of the basic principles and values of healthcare institutions. The response to the Covid-19 pandemic has created a unique set of circumstances in which the practical judgement, including ethical judgement, of nurse managers at all levels is being tested. However, the pandemic could be a turning point because staff and institutions (temporarily) freed from managerialism have demonstrated excellent practice supportive of ethical and other practical decision making. Organisations need to learn from this post pandemic.

Self-Defeating Codes of Medical Ethics and How to Fix Them: Failures in COVID-19 Response and Beyond.

Statements of the core ethical and professional responsibilities of medical professionals are incomplete in ways that threaten fundamental goals of medicine. First, in the absence of explicit guidance for responding to cases in which there is significant uncertainty or disagreement about the relative therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic merits of available interventions they perpetuate self-defeating practices. Second, without addressing the role of advertising in shaping patient and community preferences they risk creating moral loopholes that bypass and undermine professional duties of fidelity, honesty and transparency. In both cases, these flaws are exacerbated by an individualism that ignores the critical role of health systems in managing and reducing uncertainty and conflict over best practices, and in communicating with and shaping the expectations of the public. These points are illustrated with examples from the response to COVID-19 and suggestions for reform are proposed.

Ethics of Codes and Codes of Ethics: When Is It Ethical to Provide Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to provide a paradigm when it is ethical to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Hospitals around the nation are enacting systems to limit CPR in caring for COVID+ patients for a variety of legitimate reasons and based on concepts of medical futility and allocation of scarce resources. No ethical framework, however, has been proposed as a standard to guide care in this crucial matter. METHODS: Our analysis begins with definitions of ethically relevant terms. We then cycle an illustrative clinical vignette through the mathematically permissible possibilities to account for all conceivable scenarios. Scenarios with ethical tension are examined. RESULTS: Patients have the negative right to refuse care including CPR, but they do not have the positive right to demand it. Our detailed ethical analysis and recommendations support CPR if and only if 1) CPR is judged medically beneficial, and in line with the patient's and values and goals, 2) allocations or scarce resources follow a just and transparent triage system, and 3) providers are protected from contracting the disease. CONCLUSIONS: CPR is an intervention like any other, with attendant risks and benefits and with responsibility for the utilization of limited resources. Our ethical analysis advocates for a systematic approach to codes that respects the important ethical considerations in caring for the critically ill and facilitates patient-centered, evidence-based, and fair treatment to all.

Ethics of sharing medical knowledge with the community: is the physician responsible for medical outreach during a pandemic?

A recent update to the Geneva Declaration's 'Physician Pledge' involves the ethical requirement of physicians to share medical knowledge for the benefit of patients and healthcare. With the spread of COVID-19, pockets exist in every country with different viral expressions. In the Chareidi ('ultra-orthodox') religious community, for example, rates of COVID-19 transmission and dissemination are above average compared with other communities within the same countries. While viral spread in densely populated communities is common during pandemics, several reasons have been suggested to explain the blatant flouting of public health regulations. It is easy to fault the Chareidi population for their proliferation of COVID-19, partly due to their avoidance of social media and internet aversion. However, the question remains: who is to blame for their community crisis? The ethical argument suggests that from a public health perspective, the physician needs to reach out and share medical knowledge with the community. The public's best interests are critical in a pandemic and should supersede any considerations of cultural differences. By all indications, therefore, the physician has an ethical obligation to promote population healthcare and share medical knowledge based on ethical concepts of beneficence, non-maleficence, utilitarian ethics as well as social, procedural and distributive justice. This includes the ethical duty to reduce health disparities and convey the message that individual responsibility for health has repercussions within the context of broader social accountability. Creative channels are clearly demanded for this ethical challenge, including measured medical paternalism with appropriate cultural sensitivity in physician community outreach.

Understanding Ethical and Legal Obligations in a Pandemic: A Taxonomy of "Duty" for Health Practitioners.

From the ethics perspective, "duty of care" is a difficult and contested term, fraught with misconceptions and apparent misappropriations. However, it is a term that clinicians use frequently as they navigate COVID-19, somehow core to their understanding of themselves and their obligations, but with uncertainty as to how to translate or operationalize this in the context of a pandemic. This paper explores the "duty of care" from a legal perspective, distinguishes it from broader notions of duty on professional and personal levels, and proposes a working taxonomy for practitioners to better understand the concept of "duty" in their response to COVID-19.

Bin it or pin it? Which professional ethical guidance on managing COVID-19 should I follow?

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic develops, healthcare professionals are looking for support with, and guidance to inform, the difficult decisions they face. In the (current) absence of an authoritative national steer in England, professional bodies and local organisations have been developing and disseminating their own ethical guidance. Questions inevitably arise, some of which are particularly pressing during the pandemic, as events are unfolding quickly and the field is becoming crowded. My central question here is: which professional ethical guidance should the professional follow? MAIN BODY: Adopting a working definition of "professional ethical guidance", I offer three domains for a healthcare professional to consider, and some associated questions to ask, when determining whether - in relation to any guidance document - they should "bin it or pin it". First, the professional should consider the source of the guidance: is the issuing body authoritative or, if not, at least sufficiently influential that its guidance should be followed? Second, the professional should consider the applicability of the guidance, ascertaining whether the guidance is available and, if so, whether it is pertinent. Pertinence has various dimensions, including whether the guidance applies to this professional, this patient and/or this setting, whether it is up-to-date, and whether the guidance addresses the situation the professional is facing. Third, the professional should consider the methodology and methods by which the guidance was produced. Although the substantive quality of the guidance is important, so too are the methods by which it was produced. Here, the professional should ask whether the guidance is sufficiently inclusive - in terms of who has prepared it and who contributed to its development - and whether it was rigorously developed, and thus utilised appropriate processes, principles and evidence. CONCLUSION: Asking and answering such questions may be challenging, particularly during a pandemic. Furthermore, guidance will not do all the work: professionals will still need to exercise their judgment in deciding what is best in the individual case, whether or not this concerns COVID-19. But such judgments can and should be informed (and constrained) by guidance, and hopefully these preliminary observations will provide some useful pointers for time-pressed professionals.