Ethical guidelines for the allocation of scarce intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic: Discussing a Brazilian proposal.

RATIONALE: In the context of a major health crisis, health professionals must first compare patients' recovery prospects, thus giving priority to the goal of saving the greatest number of lives. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Critically evaluate a protocol for allocation of scarce intensive care units (ICU), which the authors proposed at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and originally published in two Brazilian newspapers; and compare that protocol with similar proposals, particularly with 2 successive protocols issued by the Brazilian Critical Care Association. The main objective is to highlight the advantages of the authors' approach and discuss some criticisms that has been levelled against the proposed protocol after its original publication in 2020. METHOD: Comparative analysis of 3 different protocols (the authors' proposed protocol and 2 successive protocols issued by the Brazilian Critical Care Association) with regard to ethical principles. RESULTS: The main objective of a healthcare system is to ensure a fair patient triage process when it is impossible to grant admission to all patients in need of treatment. Decision-making regarding the impartial prioritization of ICU admissions must be based primarily on clinical criteria. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) is, for ethical and technical reasons, a useful tool for clinical assessments of patients. Based on three ranges of SOFA scores, patients can be classified into a "high", a "medium", and a "low" priority group. In the case of ties, the life cycle principle must be the tiebreaker. If the tie persists, a draw must be used. CONCLUSION: The authors' proposed protocol has advantages over the other two protocols due to its greater practicality and capacity to account for egalitarian and consequentialist principles simultaneously. It aims at saving as many lives as possible within the constraints of fairness. Furthermore, the proposed protocol avoids discrimination against people with disabilities without, at the same time, promoting discrimination against the elderly.

An agency model of consent and the standards of disclosure in health care: Knowing-how to reach respectful shared decisions among real persons.

OBJECTIVE: In this article, we evaluate and compare the frailties of two different standards of disclosure of information regarding the risks of medical procedures applied in recent judicial decisions in the United Kingdom. As an alternative, we present the tenets and philosophical grounds of an agency model of consent and a person-based standard of disclosure. METHODS: Critical philosophical analysis of the background assumptions of two standards of disclosure and their relative "tests of negligence" applied in recent legal judgements in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Both standards, the "Professional Practice Standard" (the traditional standard employed in Sidaway versus Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital, 1985) and the allegedly new "Reasonable Person Standard" (mentioned in Montgomery versus Lanarkshire Health Board, 2015), can lead to malpractice if the medical-patient relationship is not guided by attitudes of respectful care. The traditional standard is disrespectful as it does not take patients as full agents, presupposing that the patient's right is only a negative right to refuse what was deliberated only by the practitioner. The "new" standard can be disrespectful if the practitioner, concerned only with what a hypothetical reasonable individual would take as relevant for choosing between alternatives of treatment, does not know how to respect their real patient in a genuine shared decision-making process. CONCLUSION: We conclude that in order to know how to obtain valid informed consent, doctors need to engage in real conversations with their patients, revealing as much information as they, taken as real persons, need to be part of a genuine shared and respectful decision-making process.

Knowing-how to care.

This paper advances a new moral epistemology and explores some of its normative and practical, especially bioethical, implications. In the first part, it shows that there is moral knowledge and that it is best understood in terms of knowing-how. Thus, moral knowledge cannot be analysed purely in the traditional terms of knowing-that. The fundamental idea is that one knows-how to act morally only if she is capable of following the right normative standards. In the second part, the paper discusses ways of integrating two expressions of moral knowing-how, namely caring and respecting into a coherent normative theory. It builds up the concept of respectful care as the central ingredient of such a normative theory. Finally, it illustrates how respectful care may transform some of our current clinical bioethical practices.

Bioética / bioethics

Aborto, eutanásia, intervenções da ciência e da tecnologia na vida humana. Mas, afinal, o que é a bioética? Este livro apresenta e discute o surgimento, os princípios básicos e algumas aplicações dessa disciplina relativamente nova, sem descuidar dos problemas e perspectivas que ela enfrenta