The Ethical Imperative of Equity in Oncology: Lessons Learned From 2020 and a Path Forward.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the simultaneous increased focus on structural racism and racial/ethnic disparities across the United States have shed light on glaring inequities in U.S. health care, both in oncology and more generally. In this article, we describe how, through the lens of fundamental ethical principles, an ethical imperative exists for the oncology community to overcome these inequities in cancer care, research, and the oncology workforce. We first explain why this is an ethical imperative, centering the discussion on lessons learned during 2020. We continue by describing ongoing equity-focused efforts by ASCO and other related professional medical organizations. We end with a call to action-all members of the oncology community have an ethical responsibility to take steps to address inequities in their clinical and academic work-and with guidance to practicing oncologists looking to optimize equity in their research and clinical practice.

Acknowledging the Burdens of 'Blackness'.

The novel coronavirus of 2019 exposed, in an undeniable way, the severity of racial inequities in America's healthcare system. As the urgency of the pandemic grew, administrators, clinicians, and ethicists became concerned with upholding the ethical principle of "most lives saved" by re-visiting crisis standards of care and triage protocols. Yet a colorblind, race-neutral approach to "most lives saved" is inherently inequitable because it reflects the normality and invisibility of 'whiteness' while simultaneously disregarding the burdens of 'Blackness'. As written, the crisis standards of care (CSC) adopted by States are racist policies because they contribute to a history that treats Black Americans are inherently less than. This paper will unpack the idealized fairness and equity pursued by CSC, while also considering the use of modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) as a measure of objective equality in the context of a healthcare system that is built on systemic racism and the potential dangers this can have on Black Americans with COVID-19.

When Scarcity Meets Disparity: "Resources Allocation and COVID-19 Patients with Diabetes".

The COVID-19 pandemic raised distinct challenges in the field of scarce resource allocation, a long-standing area of inquiry in the field of bioethics. Policymakers and states developed crisis guidelines for ventilator triage that incorporated such factors as immediate prognosis, long-term life expectancy, and current stage of life. Often these depend upon existing risk factors for severe illness, including diabetes. However, these algorithms generally failed to account for the underlying structural biases, including systematic racism and economic disparity, that rendered some patients more vulnerable to these conditions. This paper discusses this unique ethical challenge in resource allocation through the lens of care for patients with severe COVID-19 and diabetes.

Ethics and Racial Equity in Social Welfare Policy: Social Work's Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly overwhelming for communities of color in the United States. In addition to the higher levels of underlying health conditions, circumstances related to a history of oppression and unequal access to opportunities and services are apparent. Social service programs will need to be re-developed to accommodate a new reality, both in terms of how people connect with services and how social work professionals provide them. Professional social work organizations' codes of ethics are analyzed, along with the theoretical framework of structural competency. It is an ethical imperative that social welfare policy and practice advance as culturally competent, racial equity, and empowerment-based programs. Child welfare is portrayed as an example where the pandemic could provide an opportunity to learn from the past to construct a more compassionate, competent, and ethical future.

COVID-19 Interconnectedness: Health Inequity, the Climate Crisis, and Collective Trauma.

The COVID-19 pandemic brings to the forefront the complex interconnected dilemmas of globalization, health equity, economic security, environmental justice, and collective trauma, severely impacting the marginalized and people of color in the United States. This lack of access to and the quality of healthcare, affordable housing, and lack of financial resources also continue to have a more significant impact on documented and undocumented immigrants. This paper aims at examining these critical issues and developing a framework for family therapists to address these challenges by focusing on four interrelated dimensions: cultural values, social determinants of health, collective trauma, and the ethical and moral responsibility of family therapists. Given the fact that family therapists may unwittingly function as the best ally of an economic and political system that perpetuates institutionalized racism and class discrimination, we need to utilize a set of principles, values, and practices that are not just palliative or after the fact but bring forth into the psychotherapeutic and policy work a politics of care. Therefore, a strong call to promote and advocate for the broader continuum of health and critical thinking preparing professionals to meet the challenges of health equity, as well as economic and environmental justice, is needed. The issues discussed in this paper are specific to the United States despite their relevance to family therapy as a field. We are mindful not to generalize the United States' reality to the rest of the world, recognizing that issues discussed in this paper could potentially contribute to international discourse.

La pandemia de la COVID-19 ha puesto en primer plano los dilemas complejos e interconectados de la globalización, la equidad sanitaria, la seguridad económica, la justicia ambiental y el trauma colectivo, afectando gravemente a las personas marginadas y de color de los Estados Unidos. Esta falta de acceso a asistencia sanitaria de calidad, a viviendas asequibles, y la falta de recursos económicos también continúan teniendo un efecto más significativo en los inmigrantes documentados e indocumentados. Este artículo tiene como finalidad analizar estas cuestiones críticas y desarrollar un marco para que los terapeutas familiares aborden estas dificultades centrándose en cuatro dimensiones interrelacionadas: valores culturales, determinantes sociales de salud, trauma colectivo, y responsabilidad ética y moral de los terapeutas familiares. Teniendo en cuenta el hecho de que los terapeutas familiares pueden funcionar inconscientemente como los mejores aliados de un sistema económico y político que perpetúa el racismo institucionalizado y el clasismo, necesitamos utilizar un conjunto de principios, valores y prácticas que no sea solo paliativo o a posteriori, sino que genere en el trabajo político y psicoterapéutico una política de asistencia. Por lo tanto, es necesario un reclamo firme de promover y abogar por un continuo más amplio de la salud y un pensamiento crítico que prepare a los profesionales para responder a las dificultades de la equidad sanitaria, así como de la justicia económica y ambiental, si fuera necesario. Las cuestiones tratadas en este artículo son específicas de los Estados Unidos a pesar de su relevancia para la terapia familiar como área. Somos conscientes de no generalizar la realidad de los Estados Unidos para el resto del mundo, y reconocemos que las cuestiones tratadas en este artículo podrían contribuir al discurso internacional.

Fairness, Ethnicity, and COVID-19 Ethics : A Discussion of How the Focus on Fairness in Ethical Guidance During the Pandemic Discriminates Against People From Ethnic Minority Backgrounds.

Recent weeks have seen an increased focus on the ethical response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ethics guidance has proliferated across Britain, with ethicists and those with a keen interest in ethics in their professions working to produce advice and support for the National Health Service. The guiding principles of the pandemic have emerged, in one form or another, to favour fairness, especially with regard to allocating resources and prioritizing care. However, fairness is not equivalent to equity when it comes to healthcare, and the focus on fairness means that existing guidance inadvertently discriminates against people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Drawing on early criticisms of existing clinical guidance (for example, the frailty decision tool) and ethical guidance in Britain, this essay will discuss the importance of including sociology, specifically the relationship between ethnicity and health, in any ethical and clinical guidance for care during the pandemic in the United Kingdom. To do otherwise, I will argue, would be actively choosing to allow a proportion of the British population to die for no other reason than their ethnic background. Finally, I will end by arguing why sociology must be a key component in any guidance, outlining how sociology was incorporated into the cross-college guidance produced by the Royal College of Physicians.

AI Surveillance during Pandemics: Ethical Implementation Imperatives.

Artificial intelligence surveillance can be used to diagnose individual cases, track the spread of Covid-19, and help provide care. The use of AI for surveillance purposes (such as detecting new Covid-19 cases and gathering data from healthy and ill individuals) in a pandemic raises multiple concerns ranging from privacy to discrimination to access to care. Luckily, there exist several frameworks that can help guide stakeholders, especially physicians but also AI developers and public health officials, as they navigate these treacherous shoals. While these frameworks were not explicitly designed for AI surveillance during a pandemic, they can be adapted to help address concerns regarding privacy, human rights, and due process and equality. In a time where the rapid implementation of all tools available is critical to ending a pandemic, physicians, public health officials, and technology companies should understand the criteria for the ethical implementation of AI surveillance.