The shared ethical framework to allocate scarce medical resources: a lesson from COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has helped to clarify the fair and equitable allocation of scarce medical resources, both within and among countries. The ethical allocation of such resources entails a three-step process: (1) elucidating the fundamental ethical values for allocation, (2) using these values to delineate priority tiers for scarce resources, and (3) implementing the prioritisation to faithfully realise the fundamental values. Myriad reports and assessments have elucidated five core substantive values for ethical allocation: maximising benefits and minimising harms, mitigating unfair disadvantage, equal moral concern, reciprocity, and instrumental value. These values are universal. None of the values are sufficient alone, and their relative weight and application will vary by context. In addition, there are procedural principles such as transparency, engagement, and evidence-responsiveness. Prioritising instrumental value and minimising harms during the COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread agreement on priority tiers to include health-care workers, first responders, people living in congregate housing, and people with an increased risk of death, such as older adults and individuals with medical conditions. However, the pandemic also revealed problems with the implementation of these values and priority tiers, such as allocation on the basis of population rather than COVID-19 burden, and passive allocation that exacerbated disparities by requiring recipients to spend time booking and travelling to appointments. This ethical framework should be the starting point for the allocation of scarce medical resources in future pandemics and other public health conditions. For instance, allocation of the new malaria vaccine among sub-Saharan African countries should be based not on reciprocity to countries that participated in research, but on maximally reducing serious illness and deaths, especially among infants and children.

COVID-19 and the ethical issues of justice and rationing in health care, with particular regard to the Italian experience / Az igazságosság és a besorolás etikai problémái az egészségügyben, különös tekintettel a COVID-19-járvány olaszországi tapasztalataira.

Összefoglaló. A 2020. év elején kirobbant COVID-19-világjárvány többek között ráirányította a figyelmet az életmento-életfenntartó kezelések igazságos elosztásának érzékeny kérdésére is. Európán belül elsoként Olaszországot sújtotta a katasztrófa, a válsághelyzetben pedig az érzéstelenítés, fájdalomcsillapítás, újraélesztés és intenzív ellátás területén tevékenykedo szakemberek olasz társasága, a SIAARTI 2020. március 6-án közzétett egy 15 pontos ajánlást. E szerint utilitarista megközelítéssel a rendelkezésre álló szukös eroforrásokat azon betegek kezelésére kellene fordítani, akik túlélési esélye nagyobb, valamint több életévre számíthatnak a jövoben, mert ez biztosíthatja a leheto legtöbb ember számára a leheto legnagyobb hasznot. A javaslat komoly szakmai vitát robbantott ki, amely egyértelmuvé tette, hogy az orvosi eszközök igazságos elosztására vonatkozó diskurzust feltétlenül folytatni kell, nemcsak Olaszországon belül, hanem a pandémiától sújtott többi államban is. Orv Hetil. 2020; 161(45): 1899-1907. Summary. Among other queries, the explosion of the COVID-19 pandemic at the beginning of 2020 has firmly put in focus the sensitive issue of how to allocate scarcely available life-saving treatments in a fair and just manner. The first European country to face an emergency caused by the pandemic was Italy. In a rapidly escalating crisis, on 6th March 2020, the Italian Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) issued a series of 15 recommendations, suggesting that a utilitarian approach should be adopted in Italian health care and the extremely scarce resources should be reserved for patients with a greater probability of survival and life expectancy, in order to maximize the benefits for the largest possible number of people. The recommendations generated a heated debate among health care professionals, thereby evidencing that similar discussions must be initiated and pursued in all countries affected by the pandemic. Orv Hetil. 2020; 161(45): 1899-1907.

Ethical allocation of scarce vaccine doses: The Priority-Equality protocol.

Background: Whenever vaccines for a new pandemic or widespread epidemic are developed, demand greatly exceeds the available supply of vaccine doses in the crucial, initial phases of vaccination. Rationing protocols must then fulfill a number of ethical principles balancing equal treatment of individuals and prioritization of at-risk and instrumental subpopulations. For COVID-19, actual rationing methods used a territory-based first allocation stage based on proportionality to population size, followed by locally-implemented prioritization rules. The results of this procedure have been argued to be ethically problematic. Methods: We use a formal-analytical approach arising from the mathematical social sciences which allows to investigate whether any allocation methods (known or unknown) fulfill a combination of (ethical) desiderata and, if so, how they are formulated algorithmically. Results: Strikingly, we find that there exists one and only one method that allows to treat people equally while giving priority to those who are worse off. We identify this method down to the algorithmic level and show that it is easily implementable and it exhibits additional, desirable properties. In contrast, we show that the procedures used during the COVID-19 pandemic violate both principles. Conclusions: Our research delivers an actual algorithm that is readily applicable and improves upon previous ones. Since our axiomatic approach shows that any other algorithm would either fail to treat people equally or fail to prioritize those who are worse off, we conclude that ethical principles dictate the adoption of this algorithm as a standard for the COVID-19 or any other comparable vaccination campaigns.

Surgical challenges and research priorities in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic: EAES membership survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems and general surgeons are being challenged by the current pandemic. The European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) aimed to evaluate surgeons' experiences and perspectives, to identify gaps in knowledge, to record shortcomings in resources and to register research priorities. METHODS: An ad hoc web-based survey of EAES members and affiliates was developed by the EAES Research Committee. The questionnaire consisted of 69 items divided into the following sections: (Ι) demographics, (II) institutional burdens and management strategies, and (III) analysis of resource, knowledge, and evidence gaps. Descriptive statistics were summarized as frequencies, medians, ranges,, and interquartile ranges, as appropriate. RESULTS: The survey took place between March 25th and April 16th with a total of 550 surgeons from 79 countries. Eighty-one percent had to postpone elective cases or suspend their practice and 35% assumed roles not related to their primary expertise. One-fourth of respondents reported having encountered abdominal pathologies in COVID-19-positive patients, most frequently acute appendicitis (47% of respondents). The effect of protective measures in surgical or endoscopic procedures on infected patients, the effect of endoscopic surgery on infected patients, and the infectivity of positive patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were prioritized as knowledge gaps and research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Perspectives and priorities of EAES members in the era of the pandemic are hereto summarized. Research evidence is urgently needed to effectively respond to challenges arisen from the pandemic.

Dose optimisation and scarce resource allocation: two sides of the same coin.

OBJECTIVE: A deep understanding of the relationship between a scarce drug's dose and clinical response is necessary to appropriately distribute a supply-constrained drug along these lines. SUMMARY OF KEY DATA: The vast majority of drug development and repurposing during the COVID-19 pandemic - an event that has made clear the ever-present scarcity in healthcare systems -has been ignorant of scarcity and dose optimisation's ability to help address it. CONCLUSIONS: Future pandemic clinical trials systems should obtain dose optimisation data, as these appear necessary to enable appropriate scarce resource allocation according to societal values.

How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources? Controversial preferences of healthcare professionals with different personal characteristics.

The scarcity of medical resources is widely recognized, and therefore priority setting is inevitable. This study examines whether Portuguese healthcare professionals (physicians vs nurses): (i) share the moral guidance proposed by ethicists and (ii) attitudes toward prioritization criteria vary among individual and professional characteristics. A sample of 254 healthcare professionals were confronted with hypothetical prioritization scenarios involving two patients distinguished by personal or health characteristics. Descriptive statistics and parametric analyses were performed to evaluate and compare the adherence of both groups of healthcare professionals regarding 10 rationing criteria: waiting time, treatment prognosis measured in life expectancy and quality of life, severity of health conditions measured in pain and immediate risk of dying, age discrimination measured in favoring the young over older and favoring the youngest over the young, merit evaluated positively or negatively, and parenthood. The findings show a slight adherence to the criteria. Waiting time and patient pain were the conditions considered fairer by respondents in contrast with the ethicists normative. Preferences for distributive justice vary by professional group and among participants with different political orientations, rationing experience, years of experience, and level of satisfaction with the NHS. Decision-makers should consider the opinion of ethicists, but also those of healthcare professionals to legitimize explicit guidelines.

Allocation of scarce critical care resources during public health emergencies: which ethical principles support decision making.

Aim: To investigate whether and how ten ethical principles are mentioned within documents on critical care resources allocation during public health emergencies. Materials and Methods: We conducted a search of documents con-cerning critical resources allocation during public emergencies publicly available from Google and two specific international websites, up to November 2020. Each document was analyzed by two independent reviewers to assess whether a reference to any of the 10 key ethical principles indicated by the Northern Italy Ethical Committee could be found in the documents. Cohen's K statistic was used. Results: We obtained 34 documents, of which 19 were allocation frameworks, 15 crisis standards of care, 4 clinical triage protocol, 3 clinical guidelines and 2 public health emergency response plans. The principles most frequently mentioned as important for decision-making was "number of lives saved", followed by "transparency", "equity", "respect of person and their autonomy". The most cited tiebreakers were "younger first/life cycle" and "lottery". Conclusions: All documents aim to protect the life and health of the largest number of people and should be objective, ethical, transparent, applied equitably, and be publicly disclosed. It is plausible that short- and long-term prognostic tools can help allocate critical resources, but it remains strong that the decision-making process must be guided by a multi-principle ethical model that is not always easy to apply.

Community preferences for the allocation of scarce healthcare resources during the COVID-19 pandemic: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this thematic review is to examine the literature on the publics' preferences of scarce medical resource allocation during COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. METHODS: A review of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus was performed between December 2019 and June 2022 for eligible articles. RESULTS: Fifteen studies using three methodologies and spanning five continents were included. Five key themes were identified: (1) prioritise the youngest; (2) save the most lives; (3) egalitarian allocation approaches; (4) prioritise healthcare workers; and (5) bias against particular groups. The public gave high priority to allocation that saved the most lives, particularly to patients who are younger and healthcare workers. Themes present but not supported as broadly were giving priority to individuals with disabilities, high frailty or those with behaviours that may have contributed to their ill-health (e.g. smokers). Allocation involving egalitarian approaches received the least support among community members. CONCLUSION: The general public prefer rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic based on saving the most lives and giving priority to the youngest and frontline healthcare workers rather than giving preference to patients with disabilities, frailty or perceived behaviours that may have contributed to their own ill-health. There is also little public support for allocation based on egalitarian strategies.