Ranking the relative importance of COVID-19 vaccination strategies in Canada: a priority-setting exercise.

BACKGROUND: When vaccine supplies are anticipated to be limited, necessitating the vaccination of certain groups earlier than others, the assessment of values and preferences of stakeholders is an important component of an ethically sound vaccine prioritization framework. The objective of this study was to conduct a priority-setting exercise to establish an expert stakeholder perspective on the relative importance of COVID-19 vaccination strategies in Canada. METHODS: The priority-setting exercise included a survey of stakeholders that was conducted from July 22 to Aug. 14, 2020. Stakeholders included clinical and public health expert groups, provincial and territorial committees and national Indigenous groups, patient and community advocacy representatives and experts, health professional associations and federal government departments. Survey results were analyzed to identify trends. RESULTS: Of 155 stakeholders contacted, 76 surveys were received for a participation rate of 49%. During a period of anticipated initial vaccine scarcity for all pandemic scenarios, stakeholders generally considered the most important vaccination strategy to be protecting those who are most vulnerable to severe illness and death from COVID-19. This was followed in importance by strategies to protect health care capacity, minimize transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and protect critical infrastructure. INTERPRETATION: This priority-setting exercise established that there is general alignment in the values and preferences across stakeholder groups: the most important vaccination strategy at the time of limited initial vaccine availability is to protect those who are most vulnerable. The findings of this priority-setting exercise provided a timely expert perspective to guide early public health planning for COVID-19 vaccines.

Prioritizing health care workers and first responders for access to the COVID19 vaccine is not unethical, but both fair and effective - an ethical analysis.

The Nordic countries have differed in their approach as to how much priority for COVID19 vaccine access should be given to health care workers. Two countries decided not to give health care workers highest priority, raising some controversy. The rationale was that those at highest risk of dying needed to come first. However, when it comes to protecting those at the highest risk of dying from COVID19, their needs and vulnerabilities need to be considered more broadly than just in terms of the individual protection that vaccination will afford them. Likewise, when considering whether to prioritize health care workers for the vaccine, their crucial role in keeping the health care system operational, and right to a safe work environment need to be factored in. Below we review several ethical arguments for why frontline health care workers and first responders should receive priority access to the COVID19 vaccine.

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.

Triaging ethical issues in the coronavirus pandemic: how to prioritize bioethics research during public health emergencies.

Much of the ethical discourse concerning the coronavirus pandemic has focused on the allocation of scarce resources, be it potentially beneficial new treatments, ventilators, intensive care beds, or oxygen. Somewhat ironically, the more important ethical issues may lie elsewhere, just as the more important medical issues do not concern intensive care or treatment for COVID-19 patients, but rather the diversion towards these modes of care at the expense of non-Covid patients and treatment. In this article I explore how ethicists can and should prioritize which ethical issues to deal with, and develop a method of triage for identification and prioritization of ethical issues both in the next public health emergency and in bioethics more widely.

Queue questions: Ethics of COVID-19 vaccine prioritization.

The rapid development of vaccines against COVID-19 represents a huge achievement, and offers hope of ending the global pandemic. At least three COVID-19 vaccines have been approved or are about to be approved for distribution in many countries. However, with very limited initial availability, only a minority of the population will be able to receive vaccines this winter. Urgent decisions will have to be made about who should receive priority for access. Current policy in the UK appears to take the view that those who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 should get the vaccine first. While this is intuitively attractive, we argue that there are other possible values and criteria that need to be considered. These include both intrinsic and instrumental values. The former are numbers of lives saved, years of life saved, quality of the lives saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and possibly others including age. Instrumental values include protecting healthcare systems and other broader societal interests, which might require prioritizing key worker status and having dependants. The challenge from an ethical point of view is to strike the right balance among these values. It also depends on effectiveness of different vaccines on different population groups and on modelling around cost-effectiveness of different strategies. It is a mistake to simply assume that prioritizing the most vulnerable is the best strategy. Although that could end up being the best approach, whether it is or not requires careful ethical and empirical analysis.

Mistrust and inconsistency during COVID-19: considerations for resource allocation guidelines that prioritise healthcare workers.

As the USA contends with another surge in COVID-19 cases, hospitals may soon need to answer the unresolved question of who lives and dies when ventilator demand exceeds supply. Although most triage policies in the USA have seemingly converged on the use of clinical need and benefit as primary criteria for prioritisation, significant differences exist between institutions in how to assign priority to patients with identical medical prognoses: the so-called 'tie-breaker' situations. In particular, one's status as a frontline healthcare worker (HCW) has been a proposed criterion for prioritisation in the event of a tie. This article outlines two major grounds for reconsidering HCW prioritisation. The first recognises trust as an indispensable element of clinical care and mistrust as a hindrance to any public health strategy against the virus, thus raising concerns about the outward appearance of favouritism. The second considers the ways in which proponents of HCW prioritisation deviate from the very 'ethics frameworks' that often preface triage policies and serve to guide resource allocation-a rhetorical strategy that may undermine the very ethical foundations on which triage policies stand. By appealing to trust and consistency, we re-examine existing arguments in favour of HCW prioritisation and provide a more tenable justification for adjudicating on tie-breaker events during crisis standards of care.

Contractualist age rationing under outbreak circumstances.

Age rationing is a central issue in the health care priority-setting literature, but it has become ever more salient in the light of the Covid-19 outbreak, where health authorities in several countries have given higher priority to younger over older patients. But how is age rationing different under outbreak circumstances than under normal circumstances, and what does this difference imply for ethical theories? This is the topic of this paper. The paper argues that outbreaks such as that of Covid-19 involve special circumstances that change how age should influence our prioritization decisions, and that while this shift in circumstances poses a problem for consequentialist views such as utilitarianism and age-weighted consequentialism, contractualism is better equipped to cope with it. The paper then offers a contractualist prudential account of age rationing under outbreak circumstances.

[Current ethical challenges in intensive care in the face of the corona pandemic]. / Aktuelle ethische Herausforderungen in der Intensivmedizin angesichts der Corona-Pandemie.

In view of dramatically increasing patient numbers worldwide in the face of the corona pandemic and scarce resources in intensive care medicine in many countries, some of which are dramatically undersupplied, concerns and fears have spread among the population in Germany. Healthcare workers didn't know how to deal with an overload of the healthcare system. Numerous inquiries from concerned physicians as well as ethics committees prompted the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) together with seven other medical associations to work out a clinical-ethical recommendation on "Decisions on resource allocation in emergency and intensive care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic".