Academic Medicine's Journey Toward Racial Equity Must Be Grounded in History: Recommendations for Becoming an Antiracist Academic Medical Center.

The harsh realities of racial inequities related to COVID-19 and civil unrest following police killings of unarmed Black men and women in the United States in 2020 heightened awareness of racial injustices around the world. Racism is deeply embedded in academic medicine, yet the nobility of medicine and nursing has helped health care professionals distance themselves from racism. Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), like many U.S. academic medical centers, affirmed its commitment to racial equity in summer 2020. A Racial Equity Task Force was charged with identifying barriers to achieving racial equity at the medical center and medical school and recommending key actions to rectify long-standing racial inequities. The task force, composed of students, staff, and faculty, produced more than 60 recommendations, and its work brought to light critical areas that need to be addressed in academic medicine broadly. To dismantle structural racism, academic medicine must: (1) confront medicine's racist past, which has embedded racial inequities in the U.S. health care system; (2) develop and require health care professionals to possess core competencies in the health impacts of structural racism; (3) recognize race as a sociocultural and political construct, and commit to debiologizing its use; (4) invest in benefits and resources for health care workers in lower-paid roles, in which racial and ethnic minorities are often overrepresented; and (5) commit to antiracism at all levels, including changing institutional policies, starting at the executive leadership level with a vision, metrics, and accountability.

Dying individuals and suffering populations: applying a population-level bioethics lens to palliative care in humanitarian contexts: before, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Humanitarian crises and emergencies, events often marked by high mortality, have until recently excluded palliative care-a specialty focusing on supporting people with serious or terminal illness or those nearing death. In the COVID-19 pandemic, palliative care has received unprecedented levels of societal attention. Unfortunately, this has not been enough to prevent patients dying alone, relatives not being able to say goodbye and palliative care being used instead of intensive care due to resource limitations. Yet global guidance was available. In 2018, the WHO released a guide on 'Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises'-the first guidance on the topic by an international body. AIMS: This paper argues that while a landmark document, the WHO guide took a narrowly clinical bioethics perspective and missed crucial moral dilemmas. We argue for adding a population-level bioethics lens, which draws forth complex moral dilemmas arising from the fact that groups having differential innate and acquired resources in the context of social and historical determinants of health. We discuss dilemmas concerning: limitations of material and human resources; patient prioritisation; euthanasia; and legacy inequalities, discrimination and power imbalances. IMPLICATIONS: In parts of the world where opportunity for preparation still exists, and as countries emerge from COVID-19, planners must consider care for the dying. Immediate steps to support better resolutions to ethical dilemmas of the provision of palliative care in humanitarian and emergency contexts will require honest debate; concerted research effort; and international, national and local ethical guidance.

Justice, Well-Being, and Civic Duty in the Age of a Pandemic: Why we all Need to Do our bit.

This article presents an argument related to justice obligations during a pandemic and explores implications of the argument. A just society responds to a serious threat to the well-being of its people such as a viral pandemic to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on the well-being of its members. This creates identifiable societal obligations which are discharged by the institutions and individuals within society that are situated to do so. There are therefore identifiable obligations resting on various societal institutions, such as government, churches, schools, and corporate institutions, as well as obligations resting on individuals. Should an institution or individual fail to act in ways consistent with these social obligations, they perpetrate an injustice on society and its members.

Clinical and bioethical implications of health care interruption during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study in outpatients with rheumatic diseases.

BACKGROUND: To determine the impact of health care interruption (HCI), on clinical status of the patients reincorporated to an outpatient clinic for rheumatic diseases (OCDIR), from a tertiary care level center who was temporally switched to a dedicated COVID-19 hospital, and to provide a bioethical analysis. METHODS: From March to June 2020, the OCDIR was closed; since June, it is limited to evaluate 25% of the ongoing outpatients. This cross-sectional study surveyed 670 consecutive rheumatic outpatients between June 24th and October 31th, concomitant to the assessment of the rheumatic disease clinical status by the attendant rheumatologist, according to disease activity level, clinical deterioration and adequate/inadequate control. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified factors associated to HCI and to clinical deterioration. RESULTS: Patients were middle-aged females (86.7%), with median disease duration of 10 years, comorbidity (38.5%) and 138 patients (20.6%) had discontinued treatment. Primary diagnoses were SLE and RA, in 285 (42.5%) and 223 (33.3%) patients, respectively. There were 344 patients (51.3%) with HCI. Non-RA diagnosis (OR: 2.21, 95%CI: 1.5-3.13), comorbidity (OR: 1.7, 95%CI: 1.22-2.37), patient's need for rheumatic care during HCI (OR: 3.2, 95%CI: 2.06-4.97) and adequate control of the rheumatic disease (OR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.45-0.9) were independently associated to HCI. There were 160 patients (23.8%) with clinical deterioration and associated factors were disease duration, substantial disease activity previous HCI, patients need for rheumatic care and treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: HCI during COVID-19 pandemic impacted course of rheumatic diseases and need to be considered in the bioethical analysis of virus containment measures.

Moral Distress and Moral Injury in Nephrology During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Across the world, challenges for clinicians providing health care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are highly prevalent and have been widely reported. Perspectives of provider groups have conveyed wide-ranging experiences of adversity, distress, and resilience. In understanding and responding to the emotional and psychological implications of the pandemic for renal clinicians, it is vital to recognize that many experiences also have been ethically challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted rapid and extensive transformation of health care systems and widely impacted care provision, heightening the risk of barriers to fulfillment of ethical duties. Given this, it is likely that some clinicians also have experienced moral distress, which can occur if an individual is unable to act in accordance with their moral judgment owing to external barriers. This review presents a global perspective of potential experiences of moral distress in kidney care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using nephrology cases, we discuss why moral distress may be experienced by health professionals when withholding or withdrawing potentially beneficial treatments owing to resource constraints, when providing care that is inconsistent with local prepandemic best practice standards, and when managing dual professional and personal roles with conflicting responsibilities. We argue that in addition to responsive and appropriate health system supports, resources, and education, it is imperative for health care providers to recognize and prevent moral distress to foster the psychological well-being and moral resilience of clinicians during extended periods of crisis within health systems.

Digital Is Political: Why We Need a Feminist Conceptual Lens on Determinants of Digital Health.

Digital health is a rapidly emerging field that offers several promising potentials: health care delivery remotely, in urban and rural areas, in any time zone, and in times of pandemics and ecological crises. Digital health encompasses electronic health, computing science, big data, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things, to name but a few technical components. Digital health is part of a vision for systems medicine. The advances in digital health have been, however, uneven and highly variable across communities, countries, medical specialties, and societal contexts. This article critically examines the determinants of digital health (DDH). DDH describes and critically responds to inequities and differences in digital health theory and practice across people, places, spaces, and time. DDH is not limited to studying variability in design and access to digital technologies. DDH is situated within a larger context of the political determinants of health. Hence, this article presents an analysis of DDH, as seen through political science, and the feminist studies of technology and society. A feminist lens would strengthen systems-driven, historically and critically informed governance for DDH. This would be a timely antidote against unchecked destructive/extractive governance narratives (e.g., technocracy and patriarchy) that produce and reproduce the health inequities. Moreover, feminist framing of DDH can help cultivate epistemic competence to detect and reject false equivalences in how we understand the emerging digital world(s). False equivalence, very common in the current pandemic and post-truth era, is a type of flawed reasoning in decision-making where equal weight is given to arguments with concrete material evidence, and those that are conjecture, untrue, or unjust. A feminist conceptual lens on DDH would help remedy what I refer to in this article as "the normative deficits" in science and technology policy that became endemic with the rise of neoliberal governance since the 1980s in particular. In this context, it is helpful to recall the feminist writer Ursula K. Le Guin. Le Guin posed "what if?" questions, to break free from oppressive narratives such as patriarchy and re-imagine technology futures. It is time to envision an emancipated, equitable, and more democratic world by asking "what if we lived in a feminist world?" That would be truly awesome, for everyone, women and men, children, youth, and future generations, to steer digital technologies and the new field of DDH toward broadly relevant, ethical, experiential, democratic, and socially responsive health outcomes.

Reflective disequilibrium: a critical evaluation of the complete lives framework for healthcare rationing.

One prominent view in recent literature on resource allocation is Persad, Emanuel and Wertheimer's complete lives framework for the rationing of lifesaving healthcare interventions (CLF). CLF states that we should prioritise the needs of individuals who have had less opportunity to experience the events that characterise a complete life. Persad et al argue that their system is the product of a successful process of reflective equilibrium-a philosophical methodology whereby theories, principles and considered judgements are balanced with each other and revised until we achieve an acceptable coherence between our various beliefs. Yet I argue that many of the principles and intuitions underpinning CLF conflict with each other, and that Persad et al have failed to achieve an acceptable coherence between them. I focus on three tensions in particular: the conflict between the youngest first principle and Persad et al's investment refinement; the conflict between current medical need and a concern for lifetime equality; and the tension between adopting an objective measure of complete lives and accommodating for differences in life narratives.

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.

Care Delivery and Treatment Decision Making: Bioethical and Nursing Considerations During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The disruption in the supply chain of resources and interruptions in cancer treatments caused by the pandemic presented tremendous challenges to the healthcare system. OBJECTIVES: This article describes the National Academy of Medicine-defined states of medical and nursing care delivery for which local plans should be drawn and the shifting and evolving systems framework that can guide decisions to optimize the crisis standards of care. METHODS: A case study is presented to describe the process of shifting the state of medical and nursing care delivery and bioethical nursing considerations during the pandemic and beyond. FINDINGS: An evolving and shifting systems framework for crises rooted in deontology, principlism, and the ethics of care model provide meaningful guidance for establishing priorities for patient care.

Getting Real: The Maryland Healthcare Ethics Committee Network's COVID-19 Working Group Debriefs Lessons Learned.

Responding to a major pandemic and planning for allocation of scarce resources (ASR) under crisis standards of care requires coordination and cooperation across federal, state and local governments in tandem with the larger societal infrastructure. Maryland remains one of the few states with no state-endorsed ASR plan, despite having a plan published in 2017 that was informed by public forums across the state. In this article, we review strengths and weaknesses of Maryland's response to COVID-19 and the role of the Maryland Healthcare Ethics Committee Network (MHECN) in bridging gaps in the state's response to prepare health care facilities for potential implementation of ASR plans. Identified "lessons learned" include: Deliberative Democracy Provided a Strong Foundation for Maryland's ASR Framework; Community Consensus is Informative, Not Normative; Hearing Community Voices Has Inherent Value; Lack of Transparency & Political Leadership Gaps Generate a Fragmented Response; Pandemic Politics Requires Diplomacy & Persistence; Strong Leadership is Needed to Avoid Implementing ASR … And to Plan for ASR; An Effective Pandemic Response Requires Coordination and Information-Sharing Beyond the Acute Care Hospital; and The Ability to Correct Course is Crucial: Reconsidering No-visitor Policies.

Oral Health Matters: The Ethics of Providing Oral Health During COVID-19.

Oral health is a critical part of overall health. The current COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of oral health. In this article, we describe how dental practice has been impacted by COVID-19, identify the public health response to COVID-19, and explain the gradual resumption of dental care after the initial disruption due to the pandemic. Finally, we discuss how long-standing health disparities in oral health have been exacerbated by the current pandemic.

A Crucial Moment for Reflection on the Importance of Ethical Leadership in Academic Medicine.

The extreme disturbances caused by the COVID -19 pandemic on our academic medical centers compounded by a recurrent surge of violence against people of color have reopened our wounds exposing fragility, inequality, and continued racial disparities in society and health. At the center of this severe institutional disruption, leaders will be compelled to take action to keep their constituents and patients safe and their hospitals and departments afloat during and after a pandemic, all while simultaneously addressing and implementing the cultural changes required to eliminate systemic racism and discrimination. Organizational disruptions of this magnitude will naturally test one's principles, loyalties and responsibilities while challenging the practical burdens of leadership. If the goal of responding to these upheavals is to bring them to resolution and ultimately to bring about organizational change for the better, ethical leadership is critical. Applying ethical principles allows leaders to chart clear paths to solutions both in the short and long term. We review the principles of ethical leadership exemplified by a case illustration and provide a novel resource to help ensure ethical leadership in academic medicine and beyond.