The search for the principle of justice for infertile couples: characterization of the brazilian population and bioethical discussion.

BACKGROUND: Infertility is an increasingly prevalent disease in society and is considered by the World Health Organization to be a public health problem. An important ethical issue arises from the clarification of reproductive rights in a fair and equal way. The objective of this study was to deepen and update the knowledge and discussion about the difficulty of accessing infertility treatments in Brazil. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was carried out through the application of an online questionnaire that collected the socioeconomic characteristics of couples and identify how barriers to infertility care affect the most vulnerable populations. We included couples who sought medical assistance to achieve pregnancy at two clinics in the states of São Paulo and Minas Gerais. RESULTS: A total of 201 questionnaires were analyzed. Most couples self-declared as white and the average age of wives was 36 years and husbands 38 years. 65% (65%) of couples would proceed with the treatment in a different city to which they lived, 37% evaluated as having easy access to a medical specialist only after indication, and more than half of the participating have thought about giving up the treatment due to some difficulty in accessing it. 39% of participants sought more than one medical service to find better reception, 42% of couples sought more than one medical service to define where it would be better financially, and 67.2% referred to the high cost of treatments, that is, financial issues, as a great difficulty in accessing medical services and/or treatment. Although 72.6% of couples considered having a good quality of life, 54.2% admitted that infertility and the search for treatment generated anxiety/stress in the couple's life. CONCLUSION: There is a need for public education on reproductive health and for policymakers to raise awareness of the importance of the difficulty that many couples face in seeking treatment to become pregnant, especially in countries with less financial resources. Indeed, it is commonly accepted that there is a universal human right to access healthcare of appropriate quality as a matter of justice. Discussion of access to reproductive technologies should be considered taking into account the longstanding ethical debate regarding fertility, fecundity, and infertility, as well as reproductive care.

Impact of COVID-19 Exclusive Allocation Strategy on Quality of Healthcare: A Study From Jordan, 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought uncertainty to everyday medical practice. Deciding how to ration limited healthcare resources is difficult and requires the involvement of higher authorities in each country. In this article we focus on the Jordanian strategy of allocating tertiary healthcare centers exclusively for COVID-19 patients and postponing all other treatments and healthcare provision. We collected secondary data on admissions, occupancy of hospital beds, and length of stay at emergency departments and outpatient clinics, as well as surgeries conducted, between March and May 2020 at King Abdullah University Hospital in Irbid, Jordan. We also conducted a literature review to explore health resource utilization and allocation in terms of health service quality. Our findings showed a major decrease in the demand for health services at the hospital including admissions, emergency department visits, outpatient clinic visits, surgeries, and radiology during the study period. These findings indicate the enormous impact of the pandemic on the largest segment of patients in Jordan-those who depend on government health insurance-to manage their routine healthcare needs, which may affect the health status of patients. Authorities should address the COVID-19 pandemic holistically by prioritizing both COVID-19 cases and non-COVID-19 cases and should draft a framework for managing future pandemics. Moreover, planning a strategy to accommodate the number of people waiting for elective surgeries and routine healthcare should be in place to minimize the burden of this pandemic.

Bioética en los procesos de investigación y bioprospección: relaciones con pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales en Colombia

Propósito/Contexto. En este artículo se exploran los principios bioéticos de autonomía y justicia, a la luz de tres casos de uso de la biodiversidad, tanto para fines investigativos como de aprovechamiento comercial, que involucran territorios colectivos de comunidades indígenas, afrodescendientes y predios de población campesina. Metodología/Enfoque. En cada caso se examinaron sus características, los actores, las relaciones entre los actores y los beneficios contemplados para las partes. El estudio comprendió la recopilación y análisis de documentación y la realización de 10 entrevistas semiestructuradas con investigadores, representantes de instituciones, empresas y organizaciones indígenas y afrocolombianas. La investigación se realizó entre 2015 y 2017 e incluyó comunidades del Amazonas, Risaralda, Chocó y Antioquia. Resultados/Hallazgos. Se encontró que las instituciones de investigación y los investigadores tramitan y obtienen las autorizaciones reglamentarias, mientras que las entidades del Estado registran una progresiva omisión de responsabilidades que afecta los derechos de las comunidades, por ejemplo, a través de la inobservancia del derecho a la consulta previa. Adicionalmente, en los casos de estudio, las relaciones que los actores establecen con las comunidades INAPRR-CL (sigla de indígenas, negros, afrodescendientes, palenqueros, raizales, Rrom, campesinas y locales) varían en la observancia de principios bioéticos. Discusión/Conclusiones/Contribuciones. Debido a que el régimen jurídico tiene un alcance limitado para el uso de la biodiversidad en investigación o innovación tecnológica, se evalúa y se discute si la bioética podría servir de guía para el respeto de la autonomía y la participación de beneficios de las comunidades en proyectos de investigación y bioprospección.

Purpose/Context. This article explores the bioethical principles of autonomy and justice in the light of three cases of use of biodiversity, both for research purposes and for commercial use, involving collective territories of indigenous communities, afro-descendants, and proper-ties of the peasant population. Methods/Approach. In each case, we examined the characteristics, agents, relationships be-tween agents, and benefits contemplated for the parties. The study included document compilation and analysis and ten semi-structured interviews with researchers, representatives of indigenous and Afro-Colombian institutions, companies, and organizations. The research was carried out between 2015 and 2017 and involved Amazon, Risaralda, Chocó, and Antioquia communities. Results/Findings. Research institutions and researchers process and obtain regulatory authorizations, while State entities report a progressive omission of responsibilities that adversely affects communities' rights, for example, through non-observance of the right to prior con-sultation. Besides, in the study cases, the agents' relationships with the INAPRRCL (acronym in Spanish for indigenous, black people, Afro-descendants, palenqueros, raizales, Rrom, peasants, and locals) vary regarding the application of bioethical principles. Discussion/Conclusions/Contributions. Because the legal system has a limited scope on the use of biodiversity in research or technological innovation, we assessed and discussed whether bioethics could serve as a guide for respecting communities' autonomy and benefit share in research and bioprospecting projects.

Objetivo/Contexto. Neste artigo exploram-se os princípios bioéticos de autonomia e justiça, à luz de três casos de uso da biodiversidade, tanto para fins investigativos como de aproveitamento comercial, que envolvem territórios coletivos de comunidades indígenas, afrodescendentes e prédios de população camponesa. Metodologia/Abordagem. Em cada caso, foram examinadas as suas características, os intervenientes, as relações entre os intervenientes e os benefícios previstos para as partes. O estudo incluiu a coleta e análise de documentação e a realização de 10 entrevistas semiestruturadas com pesquisadores, representantes de instituições, empresas e organizações indígenas e afro-colombianas. A pesquisa foi realizada entre 2015 e 2017 e incluiu comunidades do Amazonas, Risaralda, Chocó e Antioquia. Resultados/Descobertas. Verificou-se que as instituições de investigação e os investigadores processam e obtêm as autorizações regulamentares, no entanto que as entidades do Estado registram uma progressiva omissão de responsabilidades que afeta os direitos das comunidades, por exemplo, através da inobservância do direito à consulta prévia. Adicionalmente, nos casos de estudo, as relações que os atores estabelecem com as INAPRRCL (sigla de indígenas, negros, afrodescendentes, palenqueros, raizais, Rrom, camponesas e locais) variam na observância de princípios bioéticos. Discussão/Conclusões/Contribuições. Dado que o regime jurídico tem um âmbito limitado para a utilização da biodiversidade na investigação ou inovação tecnológica, se avalia e se discute se a bioética poderia servir de guia para o respeito da autonomia e a participação de benefícios das comunidades em projetos de pesquisa e bioprospeção.

[Ethical guides, criteria for admission in intensive care, palliative care. Multi-society recommendations for allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic]. / Guías éticas para la atención durante la pandemia COVID-19. Recomendaciones multisocietarias para asignación de recursos.

Guidelines on resource allocation, ethics, triage processes with admission and discharge criteria from critical care and palliative care units during the pandemia are here presented. The interdisciplinary and multi-society panel that prepared these guidelines represented by bioethicists and specialists linked to the end of life: clinicians, geriatricians, emergentologists, intensivists, and experts in palliative care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The available information indicates that approximately 80% of people with COVID-19 will develop mild symptoms and will not require hospital care, while 15% will require intermediate or general room care, and the remaining 5% will require assistance in intensive care units. The need to think about justice and establish ethical criteria for allocation patients arise in conditions of exceeding available resources, such as outbreaks of diseases and pandemics, with transparency being the main criterion for allocation. These guides recommend general criteria for the allocation of resources relies on bioethical considerations, rooted in Human Rights and based on the value of the dignity of the human person and substantial principles such as solidarity, justice and equity. The guides are recommendations of general scope and their usefulness is to accompany and sustain the technical and scientific decisions made by the different specialists in the care of critically ill patients, but given the dynamic nature of the pandemic, a process of permanent revision and adaptation of recommendations must be ensured.

Se presentan las guías sobre ética de asignación de recursos, procesos de triaje con criterios de ingreso y egreso de unidades de cuidados críticos y atención paliativa durante la pandemia. El panel interdisciplinario y multisocietario que las preparó estuvo representado por bioeticistas y por especialistas vinculados al fin de la vida: clínicos, geriatras, emergentólogos, intensivistas, expertos en cuidados paliativos y en reanimación cardiopulmonar. La información disponible indica que aproximadamente 80% de las personas con COVID-19 desarrollarán síntomas leves y no requerirán asistencia hospitalaria, mientras que 15% precisará cuidados intermedios o en salas generales, y el 5% restante requerirá de asistencia en unidades de cuidados intensivos. La necesidad de pensar en justicia y establecer criterios éticos de asignación surgen en condiciones de superación de los recursos disponibles, como en brotes de enfermedades y pandemias, siendo la transparencia el principal criterio para la asignación. Estas guías recomiendan criterios generales de asignación de recursos en base a consideraciones bioéticas, enraizadas en los Derechos Humanos y sustentadas en el valor de la dignidad de la persona humana y principios sustanciales como la solidaridad, la justicia y la equidad. Las guías son recomendaciones de alcance general y su utilidad consiste en acompañar y sostener las decisiones técnicas y científicas que tomen los distintos especialistas en la atención del paciente crítico, pero dado el carácter dinámico de la pandemia, debe asegurarse un proceso de revisión y readaptación permanente de las recomendaciones.

Guías éticas para la atención durante la pandemia COVID-19: Recomendaciones multisocietarias para asignación de recursos / Ethical guides, criteria for admission in intensive care, palliative care. Multi-society recommendations for allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic

Se presentan las guías sobre ética de asignación de recursos, procesos de triaje con criterios de ingreso y egreso de unidades de cuidados críticos y atención paliativa durante la pandemia. El panel interdisciplinario y multisocietario que las preparó estuvo representado por bioeticistas y por especialistas vinculados al fin de la vida: clínicos, geriatras, emergentólogos, intensivistas, expertos en cuidados paliativos y en reanimación cardiopulmonar. La información disponible indica que aproximadamente 80% de las personas con COVID-19 desarrollarán síntomas leves y no requerirán asistencia hospitalaria, mientras que 15% precisará cuidados intermedios o en salas generales, y el 5% restante requerirá de asistencia en unidades de cuidados intensivos. La necesidad de pensar en justicia y establecer criterios éticos de asignación surgen en condiciones de superación de los recursos disponibles, como en brotes de enfermedades y pandemias, siendo la transparencia el principal criterio para la asignación. Estas guías recomiendan criterios generales de asignación de recursos en base a consideraciones bioéticas, enraizadas en los Derechos Humanos y sustentadas en el valor de la dignidad de la persona humana y principios sustanciales como la solidaridad, la justicia y la equidad. Las guías son recomendaciones de alcance general y su utilidad consiste en acompañar y sostener las decisiones técnicas y científicas que tomen los distintos especialistas en la atención del paciente crítico, pero dado el carácter dinámico de la pandemia, debe asegurarse un proceso de revisión y readaptación permanente de las recomendaciones.

Guidelines on resource allocation, ethics, triage processes with admission and discharge criteria from critical care and palliative care units during the pandemia are here presented. The interdisciplinary and multi-society panel that prepared these guidelines represented by bioethicists and specialists linked to the end of life: clinicians, geriatricians, emergentologists, intensivists, and experts in palliative care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The available information indicates that approximately 80% of people with COVID-19 will develop mild symptoms and will not require hospital care, while 15% will require intermediate or general room care, and the remaining 5% will require assistance in intensive care units. The need to think about justice and establish ethical criteria for allocation patients arise in conditions of exceeding available resources, such as outbreaks of diseases and pandemics, with transparency being the main criterion for allocation. These guides recommend general criteria for the allocation of resources relies on bioethical considerations, rooted in Human Rights and based on the value of the dignity of the human person and substantial principles such as solidarity, justice and equity. The guides are recommendations of general scope and their usefulness is to accompany and sustain the technical and scientific decisions made by the different specialists in the care of critically ill patients, but given the dynamic nature of the pandemic, a process of permanent revision and adaptation of recommendations must be ensured.