shape
carat
color
clarity

The Ethical Dilemma

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,098
There is more than one ethical dilemma at play here of course. One is who gets what they need when supplies are running out re ventilators, treatments etc and one that has been less in the forefront. The patients who do not have Covid 19 but who need life saving procedures that have been put on hold...whose lives may be forever altered or sacrificed due to the pandemic.



"
At a world-renowned cancer center in Houston, a woman was told her lung-cancer surgery, booked weeks ago, could be canceled last-minute. In New York City, none of the doctors’ offices at a major hospital system are doing procedures. In Toronto, operating rooms sat empty at a hospital specializing in organ transplants and cardiac care, and surgeons rested at home as wards were cleared in preparation for what’s to come.



With the Covid-19 pandemic demanding an unprecedented amount of medical resources and personnel, care for other conditions, even life-threatening ones, is being put on hold. In many places across North America, everything except emergency surgeries have been canceled, and in-person care has been delayed for all but the most worrisome cases.

“It’s a huge ethical dilemma,” said Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “There’s absolutely a danger that we’re going to ignore the people who critically need health-care services who don’t have Covid.”







North America is bracing its health-care systems in hopes of avoiding an even grimmer outcome, one the world has already seen in China and Italy. There, as hospitals faced a surge of coronavirus patients, even emergency cases unrelated to the pandemic could not all be treated.




New York Hospitals Prepare For Patient Surge

A medical worker wearing protective clothing pushes a stretcher outside a hospital in New York on March 26, 2020.
Photographer: Angus Mordant/Bloomberg
When hospitals are hit with high numbers of acute cases, they triage, a battlefield technique to decide the order of treatment of patients based on urgency. A short-term measure, triage only works as long as the flow of patients keeps moving; once they’re stabilized, they’re moved elsewhere to recover.

The problem with Covid-19 is twofold. In a worst-case scenario, as the devastation in Italy made clear, hospitals exceed their capacity to treat life-threatening cases, Covid and not, and are faced with agonizing decisions about who to save. But even where emergency rooms are able to keep afloat, the decision to pull resources from elsewhere in the system and postpone procedures like cancer surgery or organ transplants for weeks, or even months, can pose life-threatening risks.

For doctors, the judgment calls are agonizing. At the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, any operations that can be canceled already have been, said Mara Antonoff, assistant professor of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

Texas is still at an early point on the curve and, in preparation for more cases, doctors are trying to figure out what non-surgical options may be available for cancer patients, like radiation or chemotherapy. They’re also asking whether pushing surgeries back three or six months will affect survival. When Antonoff met this week with one of her pre-op lung cancer patients, a woman in her 60s, she had to deliver the news that next week’s surgery may well be canceled.

“Things are changing by the hour,” she said. “In our department, we have absolutely not scheduled any new cases unless the patient is really at imminent risk of death if we don’t do something about it.”

Pushing back non-emergency surgeries to prepare for Covid-19 creates a conundrum for doctors treating cancer, where early surgical intervention often offers the best chance of a cure, Antonoff said. “The Catch-22 is that the people who have early stage are the ones that we feel we can put off a little bit longer during this unprecedented pandemic.”

Hospital Crisis
This is not just a patient-care crisis. It’s a hospital crisis. Elective procedures are the big money-makers for U.S. hospitals. (In Canada, medicine is socialized.) Their postponement presents major financial challenges for the health-care industry just as its services are needed more than ever. The U.S. hospital lobby, for instance, has asked the government for $100 billion in bailout funds for health providers and hospitals.

This week, Tenet Healthcare Corp was forced to withdraw its first quarter and 2020 guidance due to the impact Covid-19 is having on business. The Dallas-based company operates 65 hospitals and about 500 other health care facilities.

2020-coronavirus-cases-world-map-cases-since-inline

In a statement Friday night, the American Hospital Association issued a stark warning: “Given that virtually all regular operations have come to a halt -- such as elective or scheduled procedures -- there are limited revenues coming in, causing major cash flow concerns that threaten the viability of hospitals. This is also creating a historic financial crisis, threatening the ability to keep our doors open for both the insured and uninsured alike.”




For doctors, the concerns are more personal. In addition to considering the health consequences of postponing surgeries, they worry that patients who still have access to care will actually avoid it, for fear they’ll be exposed to the virus in any medical setting.

Jenny Ahlstrom, a 52-year-old in Salt Lake City who lives with multiple myeloma, is holding off on taking bone strengtheners and even getting routine laboratory tests done. Ahlstrom’s myeloma has returned after remission, and at some point will require treatment, but she’s concerned it will make her more susceptible to Covid-19.

“I’m on the verge of needing to start treatment, and I’m really nervous now,” she said. “Do I go in? I don’t think I’m going to go in.”

Health providers are wrestling with these issues every day. In mid-March, the U.S. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services said that hospitals should limit all non-essential surgeries and procedures during the Covid-19 outbreak, a recommendation that has been widely followed in major hospitals across North America. But defining what’s “elective” -- a health-care term that really means scheduled rather than optional – isn’t easy, especially during a pandemic.

Care for those undergoing chemotherapy and radiation as well as essential surgeries continued at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance even as the city became the first U.S. hotspot of Covid-19, said Jennie Crews, medical director of the alliance’s community oncology program.

But providers delayed non-urgent procedures that require a significant amount of in-person care, or explored other therapeutic options, said Steve Pergam, medical director for infection prevention. As such, bone marrow transplants -- which seriously compromise the immune system and require prolonged hospitalization -- fell by roughly 50%, he said.

‘Collateral Damage’
In Toronto, the fourth-largest city in North America, most hospitals have cut all but emergency surgeries, procedures and even imaging tests to create surge capacity for Covid-19 cases.


“All resources are on deck for the pandemic but there is unfortunately going to be some collateral damage,” said Thomas Forbes, chairman of vascular surgery at the University Health Network. “That may be something easily measurable, like deaths, or something that’s difficult to quantify, like a decline in life expectancy because somebody requiring cancer surgery had to wait longer for their care.”




A few weeks ago, San Francisco was facing Covid-19 case growth that looked a lot like New York’s, said Robert Wachter, chairman of the Department of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. But aggressive social distancing, coupled with early work-from-home edicts, seem to be working. This week, the hospital started to open back up “in a very cautious way” to patients requiring scheduled, non-Covid-19 related procedures.

“Every day we’re asking the question, ‘Okay, if it stays where it is now, do we have some space to begin doing some surgeries?’” he said. But the hospital is “ready to shut it back down tomorrow if we have to.”

In New York City, which now has more than 50,000 cases, the scenes of a health-care system at its breaking point are now well-documented, from the arrival of a Navy ship bringing 1,000 hospital beds to a makeshift emergency room under a tent in Central Park.

In a city now filled with shuttered offices, restaurants, schools and shops, health system NYU Langone has kept doctors’ offices open for in-person care, albeit in a much more limited fashion.

“People have asked us frequently, ‘How can you have your offices open during a national emergency?’” said Andrew Rubin, vice president for clinical affairs and ambulatory care at NYU Langone. “Well, a lot of patients are sick and have been sick and will be sick well beyond Covid-19.”

The health system has worked to thin out its offices as much as possible, including with virtual doctor and urgent care visits aimed at keeping people who are high risk and those with Covid-19 at home. In-office volumes have dropped 80%, but some people are still coming in, including those with chronic illnesses “who actually can’t wait to see their doctor,” Rubin said.

“It was a very difficult decision to stay open,” he said. “But we need to be there for our patients so we don’t have another kind of health-care crisis.”

With the health-care system already strained by limited resources, there could be serious repercussions if the situation in New York City worsens, said Dara Kass, associate professor of emergency medicine at Columbia University Medical Center. Kass, who is recovering from Covid-19 herself, said she and her colleagues are treating patients in respiratory failure or cardiac arrest every hour and intubating 200 to 300 patients a day city-wide.

“The choice that people don’t really process is: Are you choosing to save a Covid patient today or another patient tomorrow?” she said. “If we burn through all our resources immediately, without thought to what it’s going to look like in a week or two, we set ourselves up for failure.”

"
 

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,786
As many of you know this has been a bleeper of a year for my family, two deaths (Dad's brother and a great Aunt who was like an aunt I was very close too) so far (neither due to COVID - 19) and a heap of other things too numerous to mention....

My mother was airlifted from remote rural NSW several days ago, fluid on one lung, both kidneys in renal failure and in heart failure again (she had 2 x stents and a pacemaker last time) this time she needs a Mitral and Aortic valve replacement.

She was taken to the best hospital in Australia for heart surgery, which happens to be in Sydney and also the main hospital/centre in that state for treating COVID - 19 patients.

I'm eternally grateful at this point Australia is not like the US and our hospital system is not yet being overrun here because if it was, she would be dead right now, I have no doubt if she was in the US they would probably make her comfortable and probably not treat her.....

As it is, I have been hoping she does not accidentally get exposed to the virus because in her current condition she would never recover. We are grateful she is getting good medical care given the circumstances.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,098
@arkieb1 I am sending bucketloads of healing dust and good wishes your and your mom’s way. Praying for her full recovery.
 

Roselina

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 1, 2020
Messages
1,099
As many of you know this has been a bleeper of a year for my family, two deaths (Dad's brother and a great Aunt who was like an aunt I was very close too) so far (neither due to COVID - 19) and a heap of other things too numerous to mention....

My mother was airlifted from remote rural NSW several days ago, fluid on one lung, both kidneys in renal failure and in heart failure again (she had 2 x stents and a pacemaker last time) this time she needs a Mitral and Aortic valve replacement.

She was taken to the best hospital in Australia for heart surgery, which happens to be in Sydney and also the main hospital/centre in that state for treating COVID - 19 patients.

I'm eternally grateful at this point Australia is not like the US and our hospital system is not yet being overrun here because if it was, she would be dead right now, I have no doubt if she was in the US they would probably make her comfortable and probably not treat her.....

As it is, I have been hoping she does not accidentally get exposed to the virus because in her current condition she would never recover. We are grateful she is getting good medical care given the circumstances.

I send you many good wishes an thoughts! Stay safe!
 
Last edited:

Slickk

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
5,000
Sending virtual ((hugs)) your way @arkieb1
 

Daisys and Diamonds

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
22,775
On a slight tangent but @missy there is a private hospital in Palmerston north (we have free health care here but if one has health insurence private hospitala are an option) - all elective surgury is postponed here too - anyway it has one patient in it right now and i thoughg of Greg's kidney stones
 

Calliecake

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 7, 2014
Messages
9,234
@arkieb1 , Sending healing dust to your mom and hugs to you. I’m sorry your family is going through this. Callie
 

1ofakind

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
1,126
I'm eternally grateful at this point Australia is not like the US and our hospital system is not yet being overrun here because if it was, she would be dead right now, I have no doubt if she was in the US they would probably make her comfortable and probably not treat her.....

While there are some hospitals in some areas that are full or even over capacity, in general there are plenty of hospital beds available. If not in one city like NYC then certainly somewhere nearby. Our town is pop 40,000 but we have the largest regional hospital system. We have less than a handful of Covid patients in the hospital (all stable, none on ventilators) but still all but the most emergency care situations have been on hold for weeks now. The media is focusing on the hardest hit areas so it may give the impression that we are all overwhelmed but that is not at all the case. I don‘t have an explanation for the nationwide shut down of the medical care system. My daughter needs some simple but important bloodwork done but she can’t find a lab within 1.5 hours...they are only open for Covid related work and like here...there are only a handful of cases where she is.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,270
Of course all human life is of equal "value".

But when medical resources are limited and doctors are stuck choosing which life to save I think the youngest should get priority.
We old farts have lived our lives and should make room for the youth.
The older I am, the longer "turn" at living I've enjoyed.

Perhaps additional consideration should be given to how much additional burden the patient will be on the system after recovering from COVID-19.
An otherwise-healthy person will be less of a drain on medical resources after recovering, leaving hospitals and doctors free to save more lives of others with COVID-19.
 
Last edited:

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,786
@kenny - but the the ethical dilemma of who should get limited medical resources isn't always black and white either, for example should a 20 year old mass murderer get the same priority as a 65 year old war veteran?

Should a younger person convicted of child sex charges get priority treatment over a 70 year old woman who has worked and and served helping her community for decades?

Just because someone is young doesn't make them a "good" person or a valuable, contributing member of that society, and just because someone is old should not make them a less valued member of society. I know 70 and 80 year olds that deliver meals on wheels to seniors, that raise money for their communities, that do charity work and help lots of people from the elderly, the disabled, and disadvantaged children....

In fact in many non Western societies like many Asian cultures, Aboriginal societies value and respect the elderly and elders as much if not more than young people.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,098

How Do We Decide Who Gets COVID-

19 Life-saving Treatment?





Anna Sayburn
DISCLOSURES | April 06, 2020




In normal times, healthcare resources are allocated on the basis of need. Those in most need of care go to the front of the queue. Clinicians are used to making difficult decisions about who gets which treatment – but these are not usual times. The COVID-19 pandemic raises the spectre of doctors having to decide which equally critically-ill patients are offered potentially life- saving admission to intensive care, or ventilation, and which go without.
If all goes well and cases increase slowly enough to prevent the healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed, there may be sufficient equipment and care to go around. But experience in Italy and Spain suggests that may not be








the case. Previously unthinkable discussions need to take place now, to agree on how these decisions should be made. A different ethical framework is required.

Guidance

In 2007, the UK government produced national guidance for pandemic preparedness, which was updated in 2017. The guidance includes an ethical framework, which states: "Equal concern and respect is the fundamental principle." Importantly, it says this means "everyone matters equally – but this does not mean that everyone is treated the same".

Professional organisations including the British Medical Association (BMA) and Royal College of Physicians (RCP) have also put out guidance for their members.

The BMA guidance says: "In dangerous pandemics the ethical balance of all doctors and health care workers must shift towards the utilitarian objective of equitable concern for all – while maintaining respect for all as ‘ends in themselves’."

The RCP guidance, which is supported by many of the other royal colleges including the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Nursing, says that fairness is the best way to understand the ethical problems that clinicians are likely to encounter. "The principal values that inform this guidance are that any guidance should be accountable, inclusive, transparent, reasonable and responsive," they write.

Why Do Doctors Need Guidance?

Anthony Wrigley, professor of ethics at Keele University, says "One of the most important things with having a clear set of guidelines is consistency... consistency is a vital component of justice [because] otherwise you’re not being fair – you are giving different responses and different outcomes potentially to people who are presenting with similar or the same levels of need or requests."





Clarity is another key aspect, he says. "For a system to be seen as just or fair people need to know the basis of it – how these decisions are being arrived at." People might disagree with the system, because there are many interpretations of what is just, but "what you want is to show you have a position and it is properly founded on entirely reasonable ethical principles".
He said he had spoken to doctors preparing for decision making in the pandemic who "desperately want some assistance with this".

IMO the factors to be considered should not just be age but age and health.
 
Last edited:

Bron357

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
6,557
These are very difficult times. Both my parents are in poor health and in their 80s. Dad is stage 4 metastatic melanoma to the lungs and wouldn’t last a few days if he contracted the virus. He has made it very clear to us that he will not take a ventilator, give it to someone with a better chance of recovery. My mother likewise with a raft of medical issues wouldn’t be a good candidate for recovery. Likewise she has decided to not take a precious resource from another.
But it falls to me to uphold these wishes.
This is causing me great angst.
I don’t want to lose either of my parents, who does, but to know that it will be up to me to say “keep them comfortable and let them go” is horrifying.
Lord give me strength.
So it’s not an easy time for anyone.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,270
@kenny - but the the ethical dilemma of who should get limited medical resources isn't always black and white either, for example should a 20 year old mass murderer get the same priority as a 65 year old war veteran?

Should a younger person convicted of child sex charges get priority treatment over a 70 year old woman who has worked and and served helping her community for decades?

Just because someone is young doesn't make them a "good" person or a valuable, contributing member of that society, and just because someone is old should not make them a less valued member of society. I know 70 and 80 year olds that deliver meals on wheels to seniors, that raise money for their communities, that do charity work and help lots of people from the elderly, the disabled, and disadvantaged children....

In fact in many non Western societies like many Asian cultures, Aboriginal societies value and respect the elderly and elders as much if not more than young people.

I certainly can't argue that some people are good, others bad.
But IMO when it comes to medical care Hitler's and Gandhi's "right" to it is equal.

I think giving doctors power to decide who gets denied life-saving care based on their opinion of how 'good' the person is an unacceptably slippery slope.
What about otherwise-equal patients where one is an atheist but the other is a leader in the religion of the doctors deciding which to treat?
That ugly human quality, belikemeitis, will creep in. :knockout:

I think the basis for age-based choice is reasonable.

ETA: Punishment for crimes falls under the purview of law, not medicine.
 
Last edited:

arkieb1

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
9,786
@kenny - age based choice might be a "reasonable" and "logical" choice but in most societies I think the level of medical care and choices comes down to wealth and resources. The wealthy irrespective of age, mostly get the best medical care and attention in both your and my society.

That might not be "fair" but that seems to be how it is.
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,270
I agree that's how it is.

But it's not ethical, the subject of this thread.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,098

It's a podcast.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,098

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,098

Updated April 8, 2020

The AMA Code of Medical Ethics offers foundational guidance for health care professionals and institutions responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in Opinion 8.3, "Physicians' Responsibilities in Disaster Response and Preparedness," and Opinion 11.1.3, "Allocating Limited Health Care Resources."



Featured updates: COVID-19
Track the evolving situation with the AMA's library of the most up-to-date resources from JAMA, CDC and WHO.
Read the Latest
As its title suggests, Opinion 8.3, sets out physicians' ethical obligations in situations of epidemic, disaster, or terrorism. First and foremost is the obligation to "provide urgent medical care during disasters," an obligation that holds "even in the face of greater than usual risk to physicians' own safety, health or life." Opinion 8.3 recognizes that the physician workforce itself is not an unlimited resource, however. The risks of providing care to individual patients today should be evaluated against the ability to provide care in the future.

Opinion 11.1.3 sets out criteria for allocating limited resources among patients in various contexts, including triage situations—for example, ventilators during a pandemic:

  • Urgency of (medical) need
  • Likelihood and anticipated duration of benefit
  • Change in quality of life
Opinion 11.1.3 further calls on health care professionals and institutions to:

  • Give first priority to patients for whom treatment will avoid premature death or extremely poor outcomes
  • Use an objective, flexible, transparent mechanism to determine which patients will receive recourse when there are not substantial differences among patients
  • Requires that allocation policies be explained both to patients who are denied access to limited resources and to the public
As official policy positions of the AMA, Opinions in the Code are of necessity framed broadly, intended to be applicable across a range of settings. The following discussions interpret guidance from across the Code to issues that are emerging as the pandemic evolves:

  • Allocating personal protective equipment among health care personnel
  • Responsibilities of leaders of health care teams in the context of pandemic disease
  • Considerations of stewardship in balancing the needs of individual patients and those of the community at large
Protecting health care personnel
Questions about allocating limited resources don’t involve only matters of distributing resources among patients, of course. How should health care institutions and their personnel think about distributing personal protective equipment (PPEs) in the face of ongoing shortages?

Although the Code of Medical Ethics doesn’t speak directly to the question, it can offer insight to help think through an answer. Consider, for example, two key allocation criteria set out in Opinion 11.1.3, “Allocating Limited Health Care Resources”: urgency of need and likelihood of benefit.

For decisions about PPEs, “urgency of need” in the first instance might relate to the physician’s role in the institution and degree of contact with patients. In a pandemic crisis, physicians and other health care personnel who are on the front lines triaging incoming patients may have more urgent need for, and thus greater claim on, limited stocks of protective gear than others. So might those who have volunteered or been assigned to provide care in isolation wards.

In a 2010 report, the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs drilled down a little deeper in analyzing physicians’ obligations to accept immunization. The more transmissible the disease, and the higher the risk of occupational exposure, the more urgent the need for protection. Second order risks that an infected physician might pose to patients and colleagues, or members of their own household or other intimates, should also factor into decisions about access to PPE.

Whether physicians can ethically decline to provide care if PPE is not available depends on several considerations, particularly the anticipated level of risk. In some instances, circumstances unique to the individual physician, or other health care professional, may justify such a refusal—for example, when a physician has underlying health conditions that put them at extremely high risk for a poor outcome should they become infected.

In any situation, when best possible PPE are severely limited or not available, efforts need to be made to find or devise ways to reduce risk to health care personnel to the greatest extent possible.

The benefits of protecting physicians and all health care personnel, especially those who are most immediately at risk by virtue of their service to patients, accrue to the public at large.

Leading the pandemic care “team”
In crisis situations, physicians’ ethical responsibilities to be effective leaders of health care teams may come into sharper focus than ever. Providing the best care one can in the volatile environment of a rapidly evolving pandemic, especially when key resources may be limited, challenges the entire team, but especially the individual looked to as team leader. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics articulates key considerations for physician-leaders in Opinion 10.8, “Collaborative Care.”

Physicians’ responsibility to model ethical leadership doesn’t diminish with the pace of work. They must be mindful of their own and other team members’ skills, expertise and roles in patient care and hold the team accountable for fulfilling their individual and collective responsibilities. Ensuring that team members are heard and their views considered is essential to the open discussion of ethical and clinical concerns required for effective teamwork.

As leaders of health care teams, physicians also have responsibilities to advocate for resources and support, as well as to encourage institutions to identify and address barriers to effective collaboration.

In situations of pandemic or disaster, the idea of a health care “team” may encompass more than the care teams of a single institution. The professional community at large may need to function collectively as a “team” in providing care to the social and geographic communities in which they practice. Opinion 11.1.4, “Financial Barriers to Health Care Access,” enjoins all physicians to promote access to care for individual patients, regardless of the patient’s economic means. It encourages physicians in poor communities to turn to colleagues in more prosperous communities for assistance; this implies in turn a reciprocal obligation for colleagues in more prosperous communities to assist within their means.

“Stewardship” in a pandemic
The looming threat of shortages of medications, critical equipment and other supplies makes questions of stewardship tangible and immediate in the context of pandemic. Opinion 11.1.2, “Physician Stewardship of Health Care Resources,” in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics sets out key facets of physicians’ obligation to be prudent stewards of the “shared societal resources with which they are entrusted.”

Opinion 11.1.2 recognizes the primacy of physicians’ ethical obligation to the well-being of individual patients but sets that obligation in the context of physicians’ concurrent duty to promote public health and access to care. Physicians are instructed, as always, to base recommendations and decisions on patients’ medical needs and endorse recommendations that offer reasonable likelihood of meeting patients’ health care goals. But in doing so, Opinion 11.1.2 calls on physicians to “choose the course of action that requires fewer resources when alternative courses of action offer similar likelihood of benefit and degree of anticipated benefit compared to anticipated harm for the individual patient but require different levels of resources.”

Opinion 11.1.2 also recognizes that individual physicians alone can’t and shouldn’t be expected to address “systemic challenges of wisely managing health care resources,” and provides guidance for the profession as a whole, and health care institutions, to “create conditions that make it possible for individual physicians to be prudent stewards.”

The obligation of stewardship requires physicians to strike an ethically justifiable balance between the specific needs of their individual patients and the global needs of the community of patients overall. Under conditions of a public health crisis, the obligation of stewardship may require physicians to consider alternative, less-preferred therapies for some individuals when there may be new critical public need for the same therapies. The goal is to minimize harm both to one’s own population of patients and to the community of patients. As Opinion 1.1.2, “Prospective Patients,”notes, physicians have an “ethical obligation to provide care in cases of medical emergency. Physicians must also uphold ethical responsibilities not to discriminate against a prospective patient on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation
Updated April 8, 2020

The AMA Code of Medical Ethics offers foundational guidance for health care professionals and institutions responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in Opinion 8.3, "Physicians' Responsibilities in Disaster Response and Preparedness," and Opinion 11.1.3, "Allocating Limited Health Care Resources."



Featured updates: COVID-19
Track the evolving situation with the AMA's library of the most up-to-date resources from JAMA, CDC and WHO.
Read the Latest
As its title suggests, Opinion 8.3, sets out physicians' ethical obligations in situations of epidemic, disaster, or terrorism. First and foremost is the obligation to "provide urgent medical care during disasters," an obligation that holds "even in the face of greater than usual risk to physicians' own safety, health or life." Opinion 8.3 recognizes that the physician workforce itself is not an unlimited resource, however. The risks of providing care to individual patients today should be evaluated against the ability to provide care in the future.

Opinion 11.1.3 sets out criteria for allocating limited resources among patients in various contexts, including triage situations—for example, ventilators during a pandemic:

  • Urgency of (medical) need
  • Likelihood and anticipated duration of benefit
  • Change in quality of life
Opinion 11.1.3 further calls on health care professionals and institutions to:

  • Give first priority to patients for whom treatment will avoid premature death or extremely poor outcomes
  • Use an objective, flexible, transparent mechanism to determine which patients will receive recourse when there are not substantial differences among patients
  • Requires that allocation policies be explained both to patients who are denied access to limited resources and to the public
As official policy positions of the AMA, Opinions in the Code are of necessity framed broadly, intended to be applicable across a range of settings. The following discussions interpret guidance from across the Code to issues that are emerging as the pandemic evolves:

  • Allocating personal protective equipment among health care personnel
  • Responsibilities of leaders of health care teams in the context of pandemic disease
  • Considerations of stewardship in balancing the needs of individual patients and those of the community at large
Protecting health care personnel
Questions about allocating limited resources don’t involve only matters of distributing resources among patients, of course. How should health care institutions and their personnel think about distributing personal protective equipment (PPEs) in the face of ongoing shortages?

Although the Code of Medical Ethics doesn’t speak directly to the question, it can offer insight to help think through an answer. Consider, for example, two key allocation criteria set out in Opinion 11.1.3, “Allocating Limited Health Care Resources”: urgency of need and likelihood of benefit.

For decisions about PPEs, “urgency of need” in the first instance might relate to the physician’s role in the institution and degree of contact with patients. In a pandemic crisis, physicians and other health care personnel who are on the front lines triaging incoming patients may have more urgent need for, and thus greater claim on, limited stocks of protective gear than others. So might those who have volunteered or been assigned to provide care in isolation wards.

In a 2010 report, the AMA’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs drilled down a little deeper in analyzing physicians’ obligations to accept immunization. The more transmissible the disease, and the higher the risk of occupational exposure, the more urgent the need for protection. Second order risks that an infected physician might pose to patients and colleagues, or members of their own household or other intimates, should also factor into decisions about access to PPE.

Whether physicians can ethically decline to provide care if PPE is not available depends on several considerations, particularly the anticipated level of risk. In some instances, circumstances unique to the individual physician, or other health care professional, may justify such a refusal—for example, when a physician has underlying health conditions that put them at extremely high risk for a poor outcome should they become infected.

In any situation, when best possible PPE are severely limited or not available, efforts need to be made to find or devise ways to reduce risk to health care personnel to the greatest extent possible.

The benefits of protecting physicians and all health care personnel, especially those who are most immediately at risk by virtue of their service to patients, accrue to the public at large.

Leading the pandemic care “team”
In crisis situations, physicians’ ethical responsibilities to be effective leaders of health care teams may come into sharper focus than ever. Providing the best care one can in the volatile environment of a rapidly evolving pandemic, especially when key resources may be limited, challenges the entire team, but especially the individual looked to as team leader. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics articulates key considerations for physician-leaders in Opinion 10.8, “Collaborative Care.”

Physicians’ responsibility to model ethical leadership doesn’t diminish with the pace of work. They must be mindful of their own and other team members’ skills, expertise and roles in patient care and hold the team accountable for fulfilling their individual and collective responsibilities. Ensuring that team members are heard and their views considered is essential to the open discussion of ethical and clinical concerns required for effective teamwork.

As leaders of health care teams, physicians also have responsibilities to advocate for resources and support, as well as to encourage institutions to identify and address barriers to effective collaboration.

In situations of pandemic or disaster, the idea of a health care “team” may encompass more than the care teams of a single institution. The professional community at large may need to function collectively as a “team” in providing care to the social and geographic communities in which they practice. Opinion 11.1.4, “Financial Barriers to Health Care Access,” enjoins all physicians to promote access to care for individual patients, regardless of the patient’s economic means. It encourages physicians in poor communities to turn to colleagues in more prosperous communities for assistance; this implies in turn a reciprocal obligation for colleagues in more prosperous communities to assist within their means.

“Stewardship” in a pandemic
The looming threat of shortages of medications, critical equipment and other supplies makes questions of stewardship tangible and immediate in the context of pandemic. Opinion 11.1.2, “Physician Stewardship of Health Care Resources,” in the AMA Code of Medical Ethics sets out key facets of physicians’ obligation to be prudent stewards of the “shared societal resources with which they are entrusted.”

Opinion 11.1.2 recognizes the primacy of physicians’ ethical obligation to the well-being of individual patients but sets that obligation in the context of physicians’ concurrent duty to promote public health and access to care. Physicians are instructed, as always, to base recommendations and decisions on patients’ medical needs and endorse recommendations that offer reasonable likelihood of meeting patients’ health care goals. But in doing so, Opinion 11.1.2 calls on physicians to “choose the course of action that requires fewer resources when alternative courses of action offer similar likelihood of benefit and degree of anticipated benefit compared to anticipated harm for the individual patient but require different levels of resources.”

Opinion 11.1.2 also recognizes that individual physicians alone can’t and shouldn’t be expected to address “systemic challenges of wisely managing health care resources,” and provides guidance for the profession as a whole, and health care institutions, to “create conditions that make it possible for individual physicians to be prudent stewards.”

The obligation of stewardship requires physicians to strike an ethically justifiable balance between the specific needs of their individual patients and the global needs of the community of patients overall. Under conditions of a public health crisis, the obligation of stewardship may require physicians to consider alternative, less-preferred therapies for some individuals when there may be new critical public need for the same therapies. The goal is to minimize harm both to one’s own population of patients and to the community of patients. As Opinion 1.1.2, “Prospective Patients,”notes, physicians have an “ethical obligation to provide care in cases of medical emergency. Physicians must also uphold ethical responsibilities not to discriminate against a prospective patient on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity, or other personal or social characteristics that are not clinically relevant to the individual’s care.”

Pressing existing therapies into new uses in pandemics, whether drugs or devices, is fundamentally a form of innovation, and thus should be informed by the guidance of Opinion 1.2.11, “Ethically Sound Innovation in Medical Practice.” Opinion 1.2.11 provides that physicians who adopt innovative practices should:

  • Do so on the basis of sound scientific evidence and appropriate clinical expertise
  • Seek input from colleagues or other medical professionals in advance or as early as possible in the course of innovation
  • Minimize risks to individual patients and maximize the likelihood of application and benefit for populations of patients
Importantly, innovators should also be sensitive to the costs, financial or otherwise, of their innovation.


or gender identity, or other personal or social characteristics that are not clinically relevant to the individual’s care.”

Pressing existing therapies into new uses in pandemics, whether drugs or devices, is fundamentally a form of innovation, and thus should be informed by the guidance of Opinion 1.2.11, “Ethically Sound Innovation in Medical Practice.” Opinion 1.2.11 provides that physicians who adopt innovative practices should:

  • Do so on the basis of sound scientific evidence and appropriate clinical expertise
  • Seek input from colleagues or other medical professionals in advance or as early as possible in the course of innovation
  • Minimize risks to individual patients and maximize the likelihood of application and benefit for populations of patients
Importantly, innovators should also be sensitive to the costs, financial or otherwise, of their innovation.

Additional ethics guidance in a pandemic
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
54,098

Ethicists agree on who gets treated first when hospitals are overwhelmed by coronavirus
March 19, 2020
Olivia Goldhill
By Olivia Goldhill
Investigative reporter

Pandemics bring ethical dilemmas into sharp, terrible focus. Around the world, hospitals have been unable to cope with the millions who need treatment for coronavirus. China created makeshift hospitalsand denied treatment to those who needed non-coronavirus care; Italians wait an hour on the phone to get through to emergency services. Few countries will fare better: The United States has fewer than 100,000 ICU beds, and is expected to need a minimum of 200,000 to cope with coronavirus; the UK has just 8,200 ventilatorsand is getting an extra 3,800.

As health care systems are overwhelmed with more patients than they can feasibly treat, medical personnel are forced to decide who should get the available ventilators and ICU beds. Quartz spoke with eight ethicists, all of whom agreed that in such dire situations, those who have the best chance of surviving get priority. Despite the unanimity, all agreed that this decision is far from easy and should not be taken lightly.

Different moral theories, same answer
The decision to prioritize those with good survival odds is reinforced by several moral theories. Utilitarianism, for example, argues that morality is determined by the consequences of actions, and so we should strive to create the maximum good for the maximum number of people. “If we give scarce treatments to those who don’t stand to benefit (and have a high chance of dying anyway), then not only will they die, but those with higher likelihood of survival (but require ventilator support) will also die,” says Lydia Dugdale, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at Columbia University. “It’s not fair to distribute scarce resources in a way that minimizes lives saved.”


A contractarian theory, which bases ethics on the social contract we would agree to if we didn’t know our status in society, arrives at the same conclusion. Joshua Parker, a trainee general practitioner (primary care doctor) who co-wrote an article on the ethics of coronavirus care for the Journal of Medical Ethics, points to philosopher John Rawls’ concept of a “veil of ignorance” as a way to determine the just action: “Behind the veil of ignorance, I am stripped of any knowledge of my position. I don’t know if I’ll be old, young, rich, poor, well, unwell, male or female; and I don’t know if I will catch COVID-19 or if I do, what resources I will need,” he writes in an email to Quartz. This thought experiment makes it easier to judge what’s fair for society as a whole. Alex John London, director of the Center for Ethics and Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, agrees: “Such agents might agree that in a pandemic, when not everyone can be saved, health care systems should use their resources to save as many lives as possible—because that is the strategy that allows each person a fair chance of being able to pursue their life plan.”

Even typically diverging ethical theories are likely to point to this conclusion. Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of an action, is typically opposed to deontology, which says morality is determined by the act itself. “The deontologist might well start with a justice argument: each person is individually valuable and should have an equal chance of health care,” says Anders Sandberg, a philosopher at the Future of Humanity Institute at the Oxford University. But if this is simply impossible, then the theory doesn’t hold. “As Kant said, “ought implies can,” and if one cannot do an action it cannot be obligatory.” A deontologist approach to treat everyone equally falls short when there simply isn’t enough medical equipment to treat everyone; if some will have access and some won’t, then we have to face the question of who gets preferential treatment. And so “even the most die-hard deontologist will usually agree” that it’s wrong to treat people who are unlikely to benefit while others are in need, agrees Brian D. Earp, associate director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy at Yale University and The Hastings Center.

Doctors have reckoned with the need to allocate resources in the face of overwhelming demand long before coronavirus. Dugdale points out that the New York department of health’s ventilator allocation guidelines, published in November 2015 to address the issue amid a flu epidemic, states that first-come first-serve, lottery, physician clinical judgment, and prioritizing certain patients such as health care workers were explored but found to be either too subjective or failed to save the most lives. Age was rejected as a criterion as it discriminates against the elderly, and there are plenty of cases in which an older person has better odds of survival than someone younger.

So the decision was to “utilize clinical factors only to evaluate a patient’s likelihood of survival and to determine the patient’s access to ventilator therapy.” In tie-breaking circumstances, though, they did approve treating children 17 and younger over an adult where both have an equal odds of surviving. Dugdale adds that there’s talk of applying these guidelines to address coronavirus treatment in New York.

No good answer
The dire consequences of any decision made under such extreme circumstances means that, despite agreement, the best course of action is hardly favorable. “I would say that leaving some to die without treatment is NOT ethical, but it may be necessary as there are no good options,” David Chan, philosophy professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, writes. “Saying that it is ethical ignores the tragic element, and it is better that physicians feel bad about making the best of a bad situation rather than being convinced that they have done the right thing.”
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
9,031
I think the decision should be made based on who has the best chance to recover without enduring complications that would greatly affect the quality of life. regardless of age. Or to be totally ruthless and remove most bias -- treat the patient with greatest chance for recovery without complications based on the estimated cost of treatment. So if a 20 yr old requires $$$$$$$ of medical care and will be left with chronic quality of life reducing complications, the care would be given to someone who required only $$$ of medical care regardless of age. There's nothing to be gained by debating the value to society of an 80 yr old over someone significantly younger. One is realized potential; one is unrealized potential.

If it got to apocalyptic levels, society can't afford to lose all or most of its most experienced elder population. Someone has to show the young uns how to operate a hand-held can opener if the electrical grid is destroyed. There has to be a balance.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top