The Clarion Call of the COVID-19 Pandemic: How Medical Education Can Mitigate Racial and Ethnic Disparities.

Public health crises palpably demonstrate how social determinants of health have led to disparate health outcomes. The staggering mortality rates among African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinx Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic have revealed how recalcitrant structural inequities can exacerbate disparities and render not just individuals but whole communities acutely vulnerable. While medical curricula that educate students about disparities are vital in rousing awareness, it is experience that is most likely to instill passion for change. The authors first consider the roots of health care disparities in relation to the current pandemic. Then, they examine the importance of salient learning experiences that may inspire a commitment to championing social justice. Experiences in diverse communities can imbue medical students with a desire for lifelong learning and advocacy. The authors introduce a 3-pillar framework that consists of trust building, structural competency, and cultural humility. They discuss how these pillars should underpin educational efforts to improve social determinants of health. Effecting systemic change requires passion and resolve; therefore, perseverance in such efforts is predicated on learners caring about the structural inequities in housing, education, economic stability, and neighborhoods-all of which influence the health of individuals and communities.

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.

The Missing Chapter: The Education of Surgery and Anesthesiology Trainees as Civic Advocates.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted existing systemic inequities that adversely affect a variety of communities in the United States. These inequities have a direct and adverse impact on the healthcare of our patient population. While civic engagement has not been cultivated in surgical and anesthesia training, we maintain that it is inherent to the core role of the role of a physician. This is supported by moral imperative, professional responsibility, and a legal obligation. We propose that such civic engagement and social justice activism is a neglected, but necessary aspect of physician training. We propose the implementation of a civic advocacy education agenda across department, community and national platforms. Surgical and anesthesiology residency training needs to evolve to the meet these increasing demands.

No body is expendable: Medical rationing and disability justice during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The health threat posed by the novel coronavirus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic has particular implications for people with disabilities, including vulnerability to exposure and complications, and concerns about the role of ableism in access to treatment and medical rationing decisions. Shortages of necessary medical equipment to treat COVID-19 have prompted triage guidelines outlining the ways in which lifesaving equipment, such as mechanical ventilators and intensive care unit beds, may need to be rationed among affected individuals. In this article, we explore the realities of medical rationing, and various approaches to triage and prioritization. We discuss the psychology of ableism, perceptions about quality of life, social determinants of health, and how attitudes toward disability can affect rationing decisions and access to care. In addition to the grassroots advocacy and activism undertaken by the disability community, psychology is rich in its contributions to the role of attitudes, prejudice, and discriminatory behavior on the social fabric of society. We call on psychologists to advocate for social justice in pandemic preparedness, promote disability justice in health care settings, call for transparency and accountability in rationing approaches, and support policy changes for macro- and microallocation strategies to proactively reduce the need for rationing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Solidarity in the Time of COVID-19?

This article critically examines how solidarity has been enacted in the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, mainly, but not exclusively, from a United Kingdom perspective.1 Solidaristic strategies are framed in two ways: aspirations to overcome COVID-19 (utopian anthropocentric solidarity); and those that are illusory, incompatible, contradictory, and disrupting of solidaristic ideals (heterotopian solidarity). Solidarity can also be understood more widely from a biocentric perspective (solidarity with all life). In the context of COVID-19 a lack of biocentric solidarity points to a probable cause of the pandemic; where COVID-19, harmless in bats, jumped species as a consequence of closer contact with humans. Solidarity, therefore, is not only expressed in a fight against a viral "enemy" but is also a reminder of human activity that has upset balances within ecosystems.

Sharing Solidarity Experiences to Overcome COVID-19.

Solidarity in the general sense means unity or agreement of feeling or action, especially among individuals with a common interest; or mutual support within a group. There are different ways of standing in solidarity in different kinds of literatures. One of the most important ways is to advocate. Advocacy is a win-win strategy and a process of supporting and enabling people to express their views and concerns. In the end, I think sharing different types of solidarity can be one of the drivers that stimulate the solidarity itself, and I call on everyone to contribute to this sharing. I hope that this solidarity, which began in the world with the beginning of COVID-19, will not end with its end and will last forever because our world needs coexistence. This may be the only gift to the world from COVID-19.

Dignity, Autonomy, and Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources During COVID-19.

Ruth Macklin argued that dignity is nothing more than respect for persons or their autonomy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, difficult decisions are being made about the allocation of scarce resources. Respect for autonomy cannot justify rationing decisions. Justice can be invoked to justify rationing. However, this leaves an uncomfortable tension between the principles. Dignity is not a useless concept because it is able to account for why we respect autonomy and for why it can be legitimate to override autonomy in times of critical care resource shortages. Dignity affirms the worth of the human individual as a meaning-making embodied subject, who is always in relationship to others, the world, time, and transcendence, and who realizes their dignity through their moral behaviour. Such an understanding means people should be helped to make morally right decisions about their own treatment, which may include forgoing potentially beneficial treatment for the good of others. Respect for dignity does not require fulfilling the morally wrong choices of one who insists on treatment at the expense of others. Dignity also protects the discretion of clinicians to make decisions appropriate to their competence by prohibiting the application of broad-based criteria such as age.

Post-Coronavirus Disease 2019 Health Care and University: From Efficiency to Resilience.

After the initial emergency responses deployed to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the first half of 2020, we should now start thinking about long-term strategies and concepts for pandemic and disaster governance such as resilience. In this context, COVID-19 health care and education are especially important because they are essential public goods that determine what kind of a society we live in, during the pandemic and afterward. So for, the focus has been a tactical efficiency perspective that prioritized instrumental, logistical, or pragmatic aspects in planetary health and university education, with much less attention paid to social justice, history of inequity, and power asymmetries that affect the pandemic impacts in society. For a resilient COVID-19 response, we need to address not only medical, technical, and logistical challenges, but also the social disparities that are inherited from the prepandemic world that are negatively affecting the current pandemic outcomes.

Disability Rights as a Necessary Framework for Crisis Standards of Care and the Future of Health Care.

In this essay, we suggest practical ways to shift the framing of crisis standards of care toward disability justice. We elaborate on the vision statement provided in the 2010 Institute of Medicine (National Academy of Medicine) "Summary of Guidance for Establishing Crisis Standards of Care for Use in Disaster Situations," which emphasizes fairness; equitable processes; community and provider engagement, education, and communication; and the rule of law. We argue that interpreting these elements through disability justice entails a commitment to both distributive and recognitive justice. The disability rights movement's demand "Nothing about us, without us" requires substantive inclusion of disabled people in decision-making related to their interests, including in crisis planning before, during, and after a pandemic like Covid-19.