Ethical Duties of Nephrologists: When Patients Are Nonadherent to Treatment.

When providing care, nephrologists are subject to various ethical duties. Beyond the Hippocratic notion of doing no harm, nephrologists also have duties to respect their patients' autonomy and dignity, to meet their patients' care goals in the least invasive way, to act impartially, and, ultimately, to do what is (clinically) beneficial for their patients. Juggling these often-conflicting duties can be challenging at the best of times, but can prove especially difficult when patients are not fully adherent to treatment. When a patient's nonadherence begins to cause harm to themselves and/or others, it may be questioned whether discontinuation of care is appropriate. We discuss how nephrologists can meet their ethical duties when faced with nonadherence in patients undergoing hemodialysis, including episodic extreme agitation, poor renal diet, missed hemodialysis sessions, and emergency presentations brought on by nonadherence. Furthermore, we consider the impact of cognitive impairment and provider-family conflict when making care decisions in a nonadherence context, as well as how the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic might affect responses to nonadherence. Suggestions are provided for ethically informed responses, prioritizing a patient-narrative approach that is attentive to patients' values and preferences, multidisciplinarity, and the use of behavioral contracts and/or technology where appropriate.

Balancing the Needs of Acute and Maintenance Dialysis Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Proposed Ethical Framework for Dialysis Allocation.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to strain health care systems and drive shortages in medical supplies and equipment around the world. Resource allocation in times of scarcity requires transparent, ethical frameworks to optimize decision making and reduce health care worker and patient distress. The complexity of allocating dialysis resources for both patients receiving acute and maintenance dialysis has not previously been addressed. Using a rapid, collaborative, and iterative process, BC Renal, a provincial network in Canada, engaged patients, doctors, ethicists, administrators, and nurses to develop a framework for addressing system capacity, communication challenges, and allocation decisions. The guiding ethical principles that underpin this framework are (1) maximizing benefits, (2) treating people fairly, (3) prioritizing the worst-off individuals, and (4) procedural justice. Algorithms to support resource allocation and triage of patients were tested using simulations, and the final framework was reviewed and endorsed by members of the provincial nephrology community. The unique aspects of this allocation framework are the consideration of two diverse patient groups who require dialysis (acute and maintenance), and the application of two allocation criteria (urgency and prognosis) to each group in a sequential matrix. We acknowledge the context of the Canadian health care system, and a universal payer in which this framework was developed. The intention is to promote fair decision making and to maintain an equitable reallocation of limited resources for a complex problem during a pandemic.

Learning from Covid.

Mrs. Clark's case was an ordinary consult in an extraordinary time. She was refusing dialysis, but the psychiatric unit had concluded that she lacked capacity for such decision-making. The only difference between Mrs. Clark's current hospitalization and the last two was that it was April 2020 and a virus called Covid-19 had overtaken our hospital. As the chief of Montefiore Medical Center's bioethics service, when I received a consult before the virus, I always saw the patient. Whether the patient had been in a vegetative state for a day or for years, it didn't matter. I would lay my hand on a leg or an arm and observe. But Covid-19 enforced physical boundaries between my team and our patients; I would not be able to meet Mrs. Clark. Our hospital responded to the attack on human connection by getting creative. We asked ourselves, which tools are still available to us? Answering this involved, in part, finding new ways for our team of clinical ethicists to support the clinicians caring for Mrs. Clark.