Surgery during COVID-19 crisis conditions: can we protect our ethical integrity against the odds?

COVID-19 is reducing the ability to perform surgical procedures worldwide, giving rise to a multitude of ethical, practical and medical dilemmas. Adapting to crisis conditions requires a rethink of traditional best practices in surgical management, delving into an area of unknown risk profiles. Key challenging areas include cancelling elective operations, modifying procedures to adapt local services and updating the consenting process. We aim to provide an ethical rationale to support change in practice and guide future decision-making. Using the four principles approach as a structure, Medline was searched for existing ethical frameworks aimed at resolving conflicting moral duties. Where insufficient data were available, best guidance was sought from educational institutions: National Health Service England and The Royal College of Surgeons. Multiple papers presenting high-quality, reasoned, ethical theory and practice guidance were collected. Using this as a basis to assess current practice, multiple requirements were generated to ensure preservation of ethical integrity when making management decisions. Careful consideration of ethical principles must guide production of local guidance ensuring consistent patient selection thus preserving equality as well as quality of clinical services. A critical issue is balancing the benefit of surgery against the unknown risk of developing COVID-19 and its associated complications. As such, the need for surgery must be sufficiently pressing to proceed with conventional or non-conventional operative management; otherwise, delaying intervention is justified. For delayed operations, it is our duty to quantify the long-term impact on patients' outcome within the constraints of pandemic management and its long-term outlook.

COVID-19 vaccination in India: An ethical perspective.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: COVID-19 had put world to a standstill with enormous morbidity and mortality. Vaccines' development against this provided a beacon of hope. India approved different vaccines under emergency use authorization but distribution of vaccines and vaccination of huge population was a challenging task. We attempted to review the vaccination program from an ethics perspective. METHODS: The core ethical principles of healthcare and other tenets put forth in discussion papers on addressing ethical issues in pandemic influenza planning, ethical considerations in developing a public health response to pandemic influenza and World Health Organization (WHO) Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies values framework for the allocation and prioritization of COVID-19 vaccination were used to identify the ethical concerns in the vaccination program of the country. Relevant ministry guidelines, documents, websites etc., were accessed. RESULTS: The program tried addressing many of the ethical principles laid out in various international documents. Approving indigenously produced vaccines upheld the principle of utility while prioritizing health care workers for vaccination was an example of reciprocity. However, vaccine approval without availability of trial results in public domain raised apprehensions and lacked transparency. Lack of well-defined mechanism to facilitate vaccination for socially disadvantaged groups compromises equity. CONCLUSION: Overall, the program fared well on most aspects of ethical principles, but there were few gaps which still exist. These should be taken care of as the country advances further into vaccination program to garner enhanced public trust in the scientific, regulatory and administrative authorities.

Respect for individual autonomy and a collective benefit: Arguments in favor of compulsory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among health care professionals. / Respeto por la autonomía individual y el beneficio colectivo: argumentación a favor de la vacunación obligatoria contra el SARS-CoV-2 para el personal de la salud.

With the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, a new aspect to be taken into consideration in the midst of the pandemic is vaccine refusal. Since vaccination is voluntary, it is necessary to deal with the fact that some health care team members refuse to receive it. Here I put forward different bioethical arguments: Kantian deontology and the principles of universalizability, humanity, and autonomy; Mill's utilitarianism, with selfprotection as the sole end for which humankind is authorized to interfere with its members' freedom of action; Beauchamp and Childress' principlism and the concepts of beneficence and autonomy; Varo Baena's principle of opportunity; and the principle of solidarity resulting from the ethics of human rights. The contributions of contemporary philosophers like Roberto Espósito, Jean-Luc Nancy, and Alberto Giubilini are also included. Two counterarguments are presented: nonmaleficence and counter-production. Lastly, I suggest that, since common good (in this case, public health) is the intimate and final determining factor of individual freedom and is the same for all, it is above any individual benefit.

Con la llegada de las vacunas contra el SARSCoV- 2, un nuevo aspecto a tener en cuenta en la pandemia es el rechazo a la vacunación. Como la recepción de la vacuna, es voluntaria, se plantea cómo abordar la situación de los miembros del equipo de salud que la rechazan. Se exponen argumentos bioéticos de diversas corrientes: el deontologismo kantiano y lo conceptos de universalidad, humanidad y autonomía; el utilitarismo de Mill, con la autoprotección como único fin por el cual la humanidad está habilitada para interferir con la libertad de acción de sus miembros; el principismo de Beauchamp y Childress y los conceptos de beneficencia y autonomía; el principio de oportunidad de Varo Baena; y el principio de solidaridad, derivado de la ética de los derechos humanos. Se incluyen aportes de filósofos contemporáneos como Roberto Espósito, Jean-Luc Nancy y Alberto Giubilini. Se exponen dos contrargumentos: el de no maleficencia y el de contraproducencia. Por último, se plantea que, dado que el bien común (la salud pública, en este caso) es el determinante íntimo y último de la libertad individual e igual para todos, está por encima del beneficio individual.

Utilitarian Principlism as a Framework for Crisis Healthcare Ethics.

This paper introduces the model of Utilitarian Principlism as a framework for crisis healthcare ethics. In modern Western medicine, during non-crisis times, principlism provides the four guiding principles in biomedical ethics-autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice; autonomy typically emerges as the decisive principle. The physician-patient relationship is a deontological construct in which the physician's primary duty is to the individual patient and the individual patient is paramount. For this reason, we term the non-crisis ethical framework that guides modern medicine Deontological Principlism. During times of crisis, resources become scarce, standards of care become dynamic, and public health ethics move to the forefront. Healthcare providers are forced to work in non-ideal conditions, and interactions with individual patients must be considered in the context of the crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced healthcare to shift to a more utilitarian framework with a greater focus on promoting the health of communities and populations. This paper puts forth the notion of Utilitarian Principlism as a framework for crisis healthcare ethics. We discuss each of the four principles from a utilitarian perspective and use clinical vignettes, based on real cases from the COVID-19 pandemic, for illustrative purposes. We explore how Deontological Principlism and Utilitarian Principlism are two ends of a spectrum, and the implications to healthcare as we emerge from the pandemic.

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.