Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 187
Filter
1.
Am J Nurs ; 122(3): 49-54, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1703180

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: It's usually considered a violation of professional ethics for health care workers, including nurses, to refuse to work during mass medical emergencies, especially if their refusal is over concerns like compensation. Strikes and other forms of work stoppage may result in harm to patients and, therefore, violate professional obligations of beneficence. However, in rare circumstances a health care worker's choice to remain on the job despite risk or potential harm to themselves or even their family may be considered beyond their professional obligation. During a pandemic such as COVID-19, the ethical calculus (that is, finding the right balance between beneficence and harm before deciding on a course of action) must take account of a confluence of factors, including the risks to present patients, future patients, and health care workers; the severity and duration of the risks; and the availability of ameliorative or protective steps that reduce risk and harm. The principle of beneficence to both future patients and health care workers may be thwarted if the risk analysis is confined only to short-term concerns (that is, to concerns occurring within a narrow temporal window). If a significantly elevated risk has been demonstrated to affect nurses and other health care workers of color disproportionately, racial justice must also be considered. The purpose of this article is to assess the moral framework of a work stoppage by nurses during a pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Ethics, Nursing , Strikes, Employee/ethics , Health Personnel/ethics , Humans , Pandemics/ethics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Stem Cell Reports ; 16(11): 2567-2576, 2021 11 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525954

ABSTRACT

The significant morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) prompted a global race to develop new therapies. These include interventions using cell- or cell-derived products, several of which are being tested in well-designed, properly controlled clinical trials. Yet, the search for cell-based COVID-19 treatments has also been fraught with hyperbolic claims; flouting of crucial regulatory, scientific, and ethical norms; and distorted communication of research findings. In this paper, we critically examine ethical issues and public communication challenges related to the development of cell-based therapeutics for COVID-19. Drawing on the lessons learned from this ongoing process, we argue against the rushed development of cell-based interventions. We conclude by outlining ways to improve the ethical conduct of cell-based clinical investigations and public communication of therapeutic claims.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Communication , Pandemics/ethics , SARS-CoV-2 , Stem Cell Transplantation/ethics , Therapeutics/ethics , Humans
4.
J Med Ethics ; 46(8): 505-507, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1467731

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/complications , Decision Making/ethics , Ethics, Medical , General Surgery/ethics , Health Equity/ethics , Pandemics/ethics , Patient Selection/ethics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cost-Benefit Analysis , England , Ethical Analysis , Ethical Theory , Humans , Informed Consent/ethics , Moral Obligations , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Principle-Based Ethics , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , State Medicine , Surgeons , Surgical Procedures, Operative
5.
J Med Ethics ; 46(8): 495-498, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1467727

ABSTRACT

Key ethical challenges for healthcare workers arising from the COVID-19 pandemic are identified: isolation and social distancing, duty of care and fair access to treatment. The paper argues for a relational approach to ethics which includes solidarity, relational autonomy, duty, equity, trust and reciprocity as core values. The needs of the poor and socially disadvantaged are highlighted. Relational autonomy and solidarity are explored in relation to isolation and social distancing. Reciprocity is discussed with reference to healthcare workers' duty of care and its limits. Priority setting and access to treatment raise ethical issues of utility and equity. Difficult ethical dilemmas around triage, do not resuscitate decisions, and withholding and withdrawing treatment are discussed in the light of recently published guidelines. The paper concludes with the hope for a wider discussion of relational ethics and a glimpse of a future after the pandemic has subsided.


Subject(s)
Decision Making/ethics , Ethics, Clinical , Health Care Rationing/ethics , Health Equity/ethics , Health Personnel/ethics , Pandemics/ethics , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Disaster Planning , Humans , Moral Obligations , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Poverty , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Professional-Patient Relations , Resuscitation Orders , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Values , Triage/ethics , Vulnerable Populations , Withholding Treatment/ethics
6.
J Med Ethics ; 46(8): 514-525, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1467726

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Humanitarian crises and emergencies, events often marked by high mortality, have until recently excluded palliative care-a specialty focusing on supporting people with serious or terminal illness or those nearing death. In the COVID-19 pandemic, palliative care has received unprecedented levels of societal attention. Unfortunately, this has not been enough to prevent patients dying alone, relatives not being able to say goodbye and palliative care being used instead of intensive care due to resource limitations. Yet global guidance was available. In 2018, the WHO released a guide on 'Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises'-the first guidance on the topic by an international body. AIMS: This paper argues that while a landmark document, the WHO guide took a narrowly clinical bioethics perspective and missed crucial moral dilemmas. We argue for adding a population-level bioethics lens, which draws forth complex moral dilemmas arising from the fact that groups having differential innate and acquired resources in the context of social and historical determinants of health. We discuss dilemmas concerning: limitations of material and human resources; patient prioritisation; euthanasia; and legacy inequalities, discrimination and power imbalances. IMPLICATIONS: In parts of the world where opportunity for preparation still exists, and as countries emerge from COVID-19, planners must consider care for the dying. Immediate steps to support better resolutions to ethical dilemmas of the provision of palliative care in humanitarian and emergency contexts will require honest debate; concerted research effort; and international, national and local ethical guidance.


Subject(s)
Bioethical Issues , Delivery of Health Care/ethics , Disaster Planning , Palliative Care/ethics , Pandemics/ethics , Terminal Care/ethics , Altruism , Betacoronavirus , Bioethics , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Critical Care , Decision Making/ethics , Emergencies , Ethics, Clinical , Global Health , Health Care Rationing , Health Equity , Health Resources , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Socioeconomic Factors , Stress, Psychological
7.
Ann Afr Med ; 20(3): 157-163, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438796

ABSTRACT

Health is a human right anchored in values as a basic necessity of life. It promotes the well-being of persons, communities, economic prosperity, and national development. The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caught the world unaware and unprepared. It presented a huge challenge to the health and economic systems of every country. Across the spectrum of human endeavor and liberty, several ethical questions have been raised with regard to its management, particularly the public health control measures. Decisions for pandemic control measures are made under difficult circumstances driven by urgency and panic, with uncertainties and complexities for public goods over individual rights. Global solidarity in controlling the pandemic is being tested. National governments have the responsibility to protect public health on the grounds of common good. Political considerations should not be the basis for decision-making against the best available epidemiological data from pandemic disease dynamics. Hence, the need to adhere to the values of honesty, trust, human dignity, solidarity, reciprocity, accountability, transparency, and justice are major considerations. A literature search was conducted for the publications from academic databases and websites of health-relevant organizations. I discuss the ethical questions and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of public health control measures using the standard ethical principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and social (distributive) justice. It is observed that, at the country level, the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines are used to control the pandemic. As WHO through the COVAX strategy distributes the vaccines to less developed countries, a lot still needs to be done to address the complex bottlenecks of allocation and distribution. There is a need to ensure acceptable and transparent system that promotes cooperation, equitable access, and fair distribution of vaccines on a global scale.


Résumé La santé est un droit humain ancré dans des valeurs en tant que nécessité fondamentale de la vie. Elle favorise le bien-être des personnes, des collectivités, la prospérité économique et le développement national. La pandémie de COVID-19 a pris le monde au dépourvu et au dépourvu. Cela représente un énorme défi pour les systèmes de santé et économiques de chaque pays. Dans tout le spectre de l'activité humaine et de la liberté, plusieurs questions éthiques ont été soulevées concernant sa gestion, en particulier les mesures de contrôle de la santé publique. Les décisions concernant les mesures de lutte contre la pandémie sont prises dans des circonstances difficiles motivées par l'urgence et la panique, avec des incertitudes et des complexités pour les biens publics plutôt que les droits individuels. La solidarité mondiale dans la lutte contre la pandémie est mise à l'épreuve. Les gouvernements nationaux ont la responsabilité de protéger la santé publique au nom du bien commun. Les considérations politiques ne devraient pas être la base de la prise de décision par rapport aux meilleures données épidémiologiques disponibles sur la dynamique des maladies pandémiques. Ainsi, la nécessité d'adhérer aux valeurs d'honnêteté, de confiance, de dignité humaine, de solidarité, de réciprocité, de responsabilité, de transparence et de justice sont des considérations majeures. Une recherche documentaire a été menée pour les publications des bases de données universitaires et des sites Web d'organisations liées à la santé. Je discute des questions éthiques et des défis de la pandémie de COVID-19 dans le contexte des mesures de contrôle de la santé publique en utilisant les principes éthiques standard de respect de l'autonomie, de la bienfaisance, de la non-malfaisance et de la justice sociale (distributive). On constate qu'au niveau des pays, les directives de l'OMS sont utilisées pour contrôler la pandémie. Alors que l'OMS, via la stratégie COVAX, distribue les vaccins aux pays moins développés, il reste encore beaucoup à faire pour remédier aux goulots d'étranglement complexes de l'allocation et de la distribution. Il est nécessaire de garantir un système acceptable et transparent qui favorise la coopération, l'accès équitable et la distribution équitable des vaccins à l'échelle mondiale. critères d'attribution des vaccins COVID-19 dès qu'ils deviennent disponibles.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Public Health/ethics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics/ethics , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Justice
9.
J Bioeth Inq ; 17(4): 461-463, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384575
10.
Rev. méd. Urug ; 37(1): e501, mar. 2021. tab
Article in Spanish | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1355378

ABSTRACT

Resumen: Introducción: la pandemia provocada por el SARS-CoV-2 genera un importante desafío para el sistema sanitario y especialmente para la Medicina Intensiva. Es necesario prepararse en múltiples aspectos. Además, considerar plausible una demanda extraordinaria de camas críticas que puede llevar a un desbalance entre las necesidades clínicas y la disponibilidad efectiva de los recursos sanitarios. Objetivos: realizar un análisis bioético para brindar una orientación en la atención a los pacientes críticos. Objetivos específicos: 1) Analizar los principios bioéticos fundamentales en este contexto. 2) Apoyar a los clínicos en la toma de decisiones difíciles. 3) Hacer explícitos los criterios de asignación de recursos. 4) Definir líneas de acción ante un posible escenario de "desastre sanitario". Método: la SUMI ha generado un ámbito de trabajo colectivo cuyo método de trabajo fue la deliberación. En la documentación se utiliza la revisión bibliográfica y los protocolos ya existentes. Resultados: el trabajo plantea un análisis teórico documentado sobre los principios bioéticos involucrados en el contexto de pandemia, sobre los escenarios de demanda asistencial y sobre la fundamentación para un cambio en los criterios éticos ante un escenario de saturación del sistema. Conclusión: se plantean recomendaciones prácticas para: 1) Toma de decisiones de ingreso y egreso en demanda controlada. 2) Criterios de acción ante el aumento de la demanda estableciendo definiciones de los diferentes escenarios. 3) Recomendaciones para aplicar en un escenario de saturación del sistema.


Summary: Introduction: the pandemic caused by SARS-CoV2 constitutes a significant challenge for the health system, and especially for Critical Care Units, so we need to prepare in many aspects. Likewise, we need to consider there could be an extraordinary demand for beds in critical care units, what would lead to an imbalance between clinical needs and the effective availability of health resources. Objectives: the study aims to perform a bioethical analysis that could provide guidelines for the assistance of patients in critical care. Specific objectives: 1) to analyse the main bioethical principles in this context, 2) to support clinicians in the making of difficult decisions, 3) to make the resource allocation criteria specific, 4) to define action lines upon a potential "health's disastrous" scenario Method: the Uruguayan Society of Intensive Care has generated a space for collective work based on discussion processes. Documents include a bibliographic review and the existing protocols. Results: the study presents a theoretical analysis that is backed up by the bioethical principles involved in the pandemic context on the scenarios of demand for assistance and, by the arguments calling for a change in the ethical criteria upon the saturation of the health system. Conclusion: practical recommendations are made: 1) for the making of decisions about admission and discharge in a controlled demand. 2) to define action criteria upon an increase in demand, clearly defining the different scenarios, 3) to apply upon the saturation of the health system.


Resumo: Introdução: a pandemia causada pelo SARS-CoV2 gera um importante desafio para o sistema de saúde e principalmente para a Medicina Intensiva. É preciso se preparar em vários aspectos. Além disso, considera plausível uma demanda extraordinária por leitos críticos, que pode levar a um desequilíbrio entre as necessidades clínicas e a disponibilidade efetiva de recursos de saúde. Objetivos: realizar uma análise bioética para orientar o cuidado ao paciente crítico. Objetivos específicos: 1) Analisar os princípios bioéticos fundamentais neste contexto, 2) Apoiar os médicos na tomada de decisões difíceis, 3) Tornar explícitos os critérios de alocação de recursos, 4) Definir linhas de ação perante um possível cenário de " desastre de saúde ". Métodos: a SUMI gerou um ambiente de trabalho coletivo cujo método de trabalho era deliberativo. A documentação usa a revisão da literatura e os protocolos existentes. Resultados: o trabalho propõe uma análise teórica documentada sobre os princípios bioéticos envolvidos no contexto da Pandemia, sobre os cenários da demanda de saúde e sobre os fundamentos para uma mudança de critérios éticos em um cenário de saturação do sistema. Conclusão: são propostas recomendações práticas para: 1) tomada de decisão para admissão e alta sob demanda controlada. 2) critérios de atuação frente ao aumento da demanda, estabelecendo definições dos diferentes cenários. 3) recomendações a serem aplicadas em um cenário de saturação do sistema.


Subject(s)
Bioethics , Critical Care/ethics , Pandemics/ethics , COVID-19
12.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0251991, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1262544

ABSTRACT

Based on the investigation of financial fairness perception and donation intention of individual donors in non-profit organizations (NPOs), this paper uses structural equation model to analyze the impact of individual donors' financial fairness perception on donation intention. The results show that individual donors' perceptions on financial result fairness, financial procedure fairness and financial information fairness all have positive impact on donation intention; among which the perception on financial result fairness only has direct impact on individual donation intention, while the perceptions on financial procedure fairness and financial information fairness have direct and indirect impact on individual donation intention.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/economics , Gift Giving/ethics , Motivation/ethics , Organizations, Nonprofit/economics , Pandemics/economics , Perception/ethics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Intention , Male , Middle Aged , Organizations, Nonprofit/ethics , Organizations, Nonprofit/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/ethics , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
13.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0252169, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256037

ABSTRACT

Faced with the emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic, and to better understand and contain the disease's spread, health organisations increased the collaboration with other organisations sharing health data with data scientists and researchers. Data analysis assists such organisations in providing information that could help in decision-making processes. For this purpose, both national and regional health authorities provided health data for further processing and analysis. Shared data must comply with existing data protection and privacy regulations. Therefore, a robust de-identification procedure must be used, and a re-identification risk analysis should also be performed. De-identified data embodies state-of-the-art approaches in Data Protection by Design and Default because it requires the protection of direct and indirect identifiers (not just direct). This article highlights the importance of assessing re-identification risk before data disclosure by analysing a data set of individuals infected by Covid-19 that was made available for research purposes. We stress that it is highly important to make this data available for research purposes and that this process should be based on the state of the art methods in Data Protection by Design and by Default. Our main goal is to consider different re-identification risk analysis scenarios since the information on the intruder side is unknown. Our conclusions show that there is a risk of identity disclosure for all of the studied scenarios. For one, in particular, we proceed to an example of a re-identification attack. The outcome of such an attack reveals that it is possible to identify individuals with no much effort.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Confidentiality/ethics , Pandemics/ethics , Civil Rights , Computer Security , Confidentiality/trends , Disclosure , Humans , Privacy , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
14.
Indian J Med Ethics ; VI(1): 1-6, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1257357

ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 pandemic has dominated people's lives since late 2019, for more than nine months now. Healthcare resources and medicine have been completely consumed by the Covid 19 illness globally. This is a particularly difficult time for health systems because of the onerous responsibility to care for large numbers of sick people, protecting populations from contracting the infection by effective quarantine, isolation, and containment measures. In addition to this burden of work, healthcare providers are also overcome by fear of contracting the infection and transmitting it to their loved ones. It is during such difficult times that the integrity of healthcare providers is challenged. In this paper I will describe some challenges that a healthcare provider in a typical low resource setting faces during this pandemic time, and will propose the idea of "flexible adamancy" to address these challenges to the health system's integrity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/nursing , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/standards , Moral Obligations , Nursing Care/ethics , Nursing Care/psychology , Nursing Care/standards , Adult , Attitude of Health Personnel , Female , Humans , India , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/ethics , Pandemics/prevention & control , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Quarantine/ethics , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Indian J Med Ethics ; VI(1): 1-3, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1257356

ABSTRACT

Public health emergencies require real-time, accurate information to guide effective and timely responses. This calls for rapid and timely publication of information to promote both its scientific validity and societal value. On the other hand, rapid publication poses a potential threat to the integrity of the information published. Inaccurate or incomplete information arises due to the difficulty in conducting rigorous studies during an ongoing emergency, and the race for the fame and prestige that come with being first. The balance between the potential risks and benefits of rapid publication can be achieved by adhering to the principles of publication ethics that promote the integrity, accuracy and value of scientific literature (1). We highlight ten potential challenges related to scientific publishing and dissemination of information during this pandemic, and the underlying principles of publication ethics that could guide us.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Data Accuracy , Guidelines as Topic , Information Dissemination/ethics , Pandemics/ethics , Publishing/ethics , Publishing/standards , Research Report/standards , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Bioethics ; 35(5): 465-472, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1165822

ABSTRACT

Pro-life advocates commonly argue that fetuses have the moral status of persons, and an accompanying right to life, a view most pro-choice advocates deny. A difficulty for this pro-life position has been Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy, in which she argues that even if the fetus is a person, abortion is often permissible because a pregnant woman is not obliged to continue to offer her body as life support. Here, we outline the moral theories underlying public health ethics, and examine the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of public health considerations overriding individual rights. We argue that if fetuses are regarded as persons, then abortion is of such prevalence in society that it also constitutes a significant public health crisis. We show that on public health considerations, we are justified in overriding individual rights to bodily autonomy by prohibiting abortion. We conclude that in a society that values public health, abortion can only be tolerated if fetuses are not regarded as persons.


Subject(s)
Abortion, Induced/ethics , COVID-19 , Fetus , Human Rights , Pandemics/ethics , Personhood , Public Health/ethics , Civil Rights , Dissent and Disputes , Ethical Analysis , Ethical Theory , Female , Humans , Moral Obligations , Moral Status , Pregnancy , Pregnant Women , Reproductive Rights , Value of Life
18.
HEC Forum ; 33(1-2): 1-6, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1146775

ABSTRACT

The essays in this special issue of HEC Forum provide reflections that make explicit the implicit anthropology that our current pandemic has brought but which in the medical ethics literature around COVID-19 has to a great extent ignored. Three of the essays are clearly "journalistic" as a literary genre: one by a hospital chaplain, one by a medical student in her pre-clinical years, and one by a fourth-year medical student who reports her experience as she completed her undergraduate clerkships and applied for positions in graduate medical education. Other essays explore the pandemic from historical, sociological, and economic perspectives, particularly how triage policies have been found to be largely blind to structural healthcare disparities, while simultaneously unable to appropriately address those disparities. Central issues that need to be addressed in triage are not just whether a utilitarian response is the most just response, but what exactly is the greatest good for the greatest number? Together, the essays in this special issue of HEC Forum create a call for a more anthropological approach to understanding health and healthcare. The narrow approach of viewing health as resulting primarily from healthcare will continue to hinder advances and perpetuate disparities. Health outcomes result from a complex interaction of various social, economic, cultural, historical, and political factors. Advancing healthcare requires contextualizing the health of populations amongst these factors. The COVID-19 pandemic has made us keenly aware of how interdependent our health as a society can be.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics/ethics , Triage/ethics , Humans , Politics , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Responsibility , Social Values
19.
HEC Forum ; 33(1-2): 45-60, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1030641

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Bioethics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Ethical Theory , Pandemics/ethics , Physician-Patient Relations/ethics , Principle-Based Ethics , Beneficence , Humans , Moral Obligations , Personal Autonomy , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Justice/ethics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL