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.

Ethical allocation of scarce health care resources in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. / Asignación ética de recursos sanitarios escasos en el contexto de crisis por COVID-19.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to overwhelm the capacity of hospitals and Intensive Care Units in Chile and Latin America. Thus local authorities have an ethical obligation to be prepared by implementing pertinent measures to prevent a situation of rationing of scarce healthcare resources, and by defining ethically acceptable and socially legitimate criteria for the allocation of these resources. This paper responds to recent ethical guidelines issued by a Chilean academic institution and discusses the main moral principles for the ethical foundations of criteria for rationing during the present crisis. It argues that under exceptional circumstances such as the current pandemic, the traditional patient-centered morality of medicine needs to be balanced with ethical principles formulated from a public health perspective, including the principles of social utility, social justice and equity, among others. The paper concludes with some recommendations regarding how to reach an agreement about rationing criteria and about their implementation in clinical practice.

La actual pandemia por COVID-19 tiene el potencial de sobrepasar la capacidad de hospitales y unidades de cuidados intensivos en Chile y América Latina. Por lo tanto, las autoridades locales tienen la obligación ética de estar preparadas mediante la implementación de medidas tendientes a evitar una situación de racionamiento de recursos sanitarios escasos, y a través de la definición de criterios éticamente aceptables y socialmente legítimos para la asignación de estos recursos. Este artículo presenta una respuesta a orientaciones éticas recientes emitidas por una institución académica chilena y analiza los principios éticos relevantes para la fundamentación ética de criterios de racionamiento. Se argumenta que, frente a circunstancias excepcionales como la actual pandemia, la moral centrada en el paciente de la medicina tradicional necesita ser ponderada con principios éticos formulados desde una perspectiva de salud pública, incluyendo los principios de utilidad social, justicia social y equidad, entre otros. Se concluye con algunas recomendaciones sobre cómo llegar a acuerdo sobre criterios de racionamiento y sobre la implementación de estos en la práctica clínica.