COVID-19-Related Ethics Consultations at a Cancer Center in New York City: A Content Review of Ethics Consultations During the Early Stages of the Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised a variety of ethical dilemmas for health care providers. Limited data are available on how a patient's concomitant cancer diagnosis affected ethical concerns raised during the early stages of the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all COVID-related ethics consultations registered in a prospectively collected ethics database at a tertiary cancer center between March 14, 2020, and April 28, 2020. Primary and secondary ethical issues, as well as important contextual factors, were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical ethics consultations were performed on 24 patients with cancer (58.3% male; median age, 65.5 years). The most common primary ethical issues were code status (n = 11), obligation to provide nonbeneficial treatment (n = 3), patient autonomy (n = 3), resource allocation (n = 3), and delivery of care wherein the risk to staff might outweigh the potential benefit to the patient (n = 3). An additional nine consultations raised concerns about staff safety in the context of likely nonbeneficial treatment as a secondary issue. Unique contextual issues identified included concerns about public safety for patients requesting discharge against medical advice (n = 3) and difficulties around decision making, especially with regard to code status because of an inability to reach surrogates (n = 3). CONCLUSION: During the early pandemic, the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 spurred a number of ethics consultations, which were largely focused on code status. Most cases also raised concerns about staff safety in the context of limited benefit to patients, a highly unusual scenario at our institution that may have been triggered by critical supply shortages.

Should neurosurgeons continue to work in the absence of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 era?

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a widespread shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). Many healthcare workers, including neurosurgeons, have expressed concern about how to safely and adequately perform their medical responsibilities in these challenging circumstances. One of these concerns revolves around the pressing question: should providers continue to work in the absence of adequate PPE? Although the first peak of the COVID-19 crisis seems to have subsided and supply of PPE has increased, concerns about insufficient PPE availability remain. Inconsistent supply, limited efficacy, and continued high demand for PPE, combined with the continued threat of a second COVID-19 wave, mean that the issues surrounding PPE availability remain unresolved, including a duty to work. This paper offers an ethical investigation of whether neurosurgeons should perform their professional responsibilities with limited availability of PPE. We evaluate ethical considerations and conflicting duties and thereby hope to facilitate providers in making a well-considered personal and moral decision about this challenging issue.

CardioPulmonary Resuscitation in patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19. A consensus of the Working group on CardioPulmonary Resuscitation of the Hellenic Society of Cardiology.

The unprecedented for modern medicine pandemic caused by the SARS-COV-2 virus ("coronavirus", Covid-19 disease) creates in turn new data on the management and survival of cardiac arrest victims, but mainly on the safety of CardioPulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) providers. The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in losses of thousands of lives, and many more people were hospitalized in simple or in intensive care unit beds, both globally and locally in Greece. More specifically, in victims of cardiac arrest, both in- and out- of hospital, the increased mortality and high contagiousness of the SARS-CoV-2 virus posed new questions, of both medical and moral nature/ to CPR providers. What we all know in resuscitation, that we cannot harm the victim and therefore do the most/best we can, is no longer the everyday reality. What we need to know and incorporate into decision-making in the resuscitation process is the distribution of limited human and material resources, the potentially very poor outcome of patients with Covid-19 and cardiac arrest, and especially that a potential infection of health professionals can lead in the lack of health professionals in the near future. This review tries to incorporate the added skills and precautions for CPR providers in terms of both in- and out- hospital CPR.

Patients Left Behind: Ethical Challenges in Caring for Indirect Victims of the Covid-19 Pandemic.

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, health care systems worldwide canceled or delayed elective surgeries, outpatient procedures, and clinic appointments. Although such measures may have been necessary to preserve medical resources and to prevent potential exposures early in the pandemic, moving forward, the indirect effects of such an extensive medical shutdown must not outweigh the direct harms of Covid-19. In this essay, we argue for the reopening of evidence-based health care with assurance provided to patients about the safety and necessity of high-value vaccinations, screenings, therapeutics, and procedures. To ensure that virtually all non-Covid-related services do not come to a halt again, health care systems and physician practices must preemptively increase their capacity, secure adequate personal protective equipment to safeguard health care personnel, and develop a measured approach to reclosing such routine health care, should it become necessary in the future.