Ethical considerations in neurology during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has struck many countries and caused a great number of infected cases and death. Healthcare system across all countries is dealing with the increasing medical, social, and legal issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the standards of care are being altered. Admittedly, neurology units have been influenced greatly since the first days, as aggressive policies adopted by many hospitals caused eventual shut down of numerous neurologic wards. Considering these drastic alterations, traditional ethical principles have to be integrated with state-of-the-art ethical considerations. This review will consider different ethical aspects of care in neurologic patients during COVID-19 and how this challenging situation has affected standards of care in these patients.

Reflections on Charlie Gard and the Best Interests Standard From Both Sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

Charlie Gard (August 4, 2016, to July 28, 2017) was an infant in the United Kingdom who was diagnosed with an encephalopathic form of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome caused by a mutation in the RRM2B gene. Charlie's parents raised £1.3 million (∼$1.6 million US) on a crowdfunding platform to travel to New York to pursue experimental nucleoside bypass treatment, which was being used to treat a myopathic form of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome caused by mutations in a different gene (TK2). The case made international headlines about what was in Charlie's best interest. In the medical ethics community, it raised the question of whether best interest serves as a guidance principle (a principle that provides substantive directions as to how decisions are to be made), an intervention principle (a principle specifying the conditions under which third parties are to intervene), both guidance and intervention, or neither. I show that the United Kingdom uses best interest as both guidance and intervention, and the United States uses best interest for neither. This explains why the decision to withdraw the ventilator without attempting nucleoside bypass treatment was the correct decision in the United Kingdom and why the opposite conclusion would have been reached in the United States.

The Suffering Child: Claims of Suffering in Seminal Cases and What To Do About Them.

In all of medicine, there is perhaps nothing so distressing as bearing witness to a patient's suffering, especially if that patient is a child. We want to do everything that we can to avoid or alleviate a child's suffering, yet what do clinicians, ethicists, lawyers, or family members mean when they use the term "suffering," and how should these claims of suffering factor into pediatric decision-making? This question of suffering and what to do about it has played a key role in several prominent pediatric cases over the past decade, including the cases of Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans, and Baby Joseph. These cases have become seminal cases precisely because there is no clear resolution, and the "suffering child" continues to challenge our moral ideals of what it means to live a good life. In this article, I explore the various ways in which the concept of suffering is used in these cases, and I offer new ways in which parents, providers, and all those who work with sick children can approach the suffering child.

Should Extremely Premature Babies Get Ventilators During the COVID-19 Crisis?

In a crisis, societal needs take precedence over a patient's best interests. Triage guidelines, however, differ on whether limited resources should focus on maximizing lives or life-years. Choosing between these two approaches has implications for neonatology. Neonatal units have ventilators, some adaptable for adults. This raises the question of whether, in crisis conditions, guidelines for treating extremely premature babies should be altered to free-up ventilators. Some adults who need ventilators will have a survival rate higher than some extremely premature babies. But surviving babies will likely live longer, maximizing life-years. Empiric evidence demonstrates that these babies can derive significant survival benefits from ventilation when compared to adults. When "triaging" or choosing between patients, justice demands fair guidelines. Premature babies do not deserve special consideration; they deserve equal consideration. Solidarity is crucial but must consider needs specific to patient populations and avoid biases against people with disabilities and extremely premature babies.

Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content. DESIGN: Survey and mixed-methods content analysis. SETTING: North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. PARTICIPANTS: Program directors. MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership. RESULTS: Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend that those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations. LIMITATION: The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs. CONCLUSION: Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Intubation and mechanical ventilation of patients with COVID-19: what should we tell them?

Severe COVID-19 illness is characterised by the development of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), for which the mainstay of treatment is represented by mechanical ventilation. Mortality associated with ARDS due to other causes is in the range of 40-60%, but currently available data are not yet sufficient to draw safe conclusions on the prognosis of COVID-19 patients who require mechanical ventilation. Based on data from cohorts of the related coronavirus-associated illnesses, that is to say Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), prognosis would seem to be worse than ARDS due to other causes such as trauma and other infections. Discussion of prognosis is central to obtaining informed consent for intubation, but in the absence of definitive data it is not clear exactly what this discussion should entail.

Who Gets Scarce Medical Resources during a COVID-19 Pandemic? Let's not beat about the Bush.

Except for such rare situations where it might be determined absence of physician's imputability, physicians cannot ̳save the most lives while respecting the legal rights of the patient' without violating the overarching principle ̳every human life has equal value'. Arguing to the contrary is a conscious hypocritical attitude, or in other words, a fiction. Medical law and ethics long since carry with its various fictions. Furthermore, in a public health emergency such as the current COVID-19 crisis, medical law and ethics change and shift the focus from the patient-centered model towards the public health-centered model. Under these particular circumstances, this fiction becomes striking, and it can no longer be swept under the rug. As health emergencies can happen anywhere, anytime, the patient prioritization in circumstances of limited resources should be accepted. Medical law and ethics should back away from strict commitment to placing paramount emphasis on the value of human life. It is time for medical law and ethics to leave taboo-related hypocritical attitudes, and venture to make a historic compromise. To do so, three principles should be met: subsidiarity, proportionality, and consensus and social proof.

To trach or not to trach, that is the question.

Progressive neuromuscular disease requires increasing degrees of respiratory support to sustain life. Each step from intermittent to continuous-and noninvasive to invasive-ventilation requires thoughtful consideration based on the goals of the patient and family, and the inherent benefits and burdens of the treatment. Tracheostomy, in particular, should not be viewed as an inevitable next step when less permanent or invasive methods prove insufficient. Like other modes of respiratory support, tracheostomy may represent a bridge to recovery of pulmonary function, or a stabilizing action in the hope that novel therapies may prove beneficial. In other situations, tracheostomy represents a destination therapy, necessitating consideration of the implications of chronic mechanical ventilation. Institutional, social, and financial considerations may affect decisions related to tracheostomy, as may implicit bias regarding quality of life. The complexity of such care and decisions highlight the need for optimal palliative care throughout the patient's life.

Long-Term Ventilation in Neuromuscular Patients: Review of Concerns, Beliefs, and Ethical Dilemmas.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) is an effective treatment in patients with neuromuscular diseases (NMD) to improve symptoms, quality of life, and survival. SUMMARY: NIV should be used early in the course of respiratory muscle involvement in NMD patients and its requirements may increase over time. Therefore, training on technical equipment at home and advice on problem solving are warranted. Remote monitoring of ventilator parameters using built-in ventilator software is recommended. Telemedicine may be helpful in reducing hospital admissions. Anticipatory planning and palliative care should be carried out to lessen the burden of care, to maintain or withdraw from NIV, and to guarantee the most respectful management in the last days of NMD patients' life. Key Message: Long-term NIV is effective but challenging in NMD patients. Efforts should be made by health care providers in arranging a planned transition to home and end-of-life discussions for ventilator-assisted individuals and their families.

[Withdrawal of chronic mechanical ventilation at home: coordination, organisation and implementation]. / Beëindiging van chronische beademing in de thuissituatie.

In the Netherlands, an increasing number of patients are dependent on domiciliary ventilation. General practitioners and elderly care physicians caring for these patients are increasingly confronted with problems related to chronic ventilation. Most patients die due to progression of respiratory failure, however, patients may ask their physician to electively withdraw their assisted ventilation. According to the Dutch Medical Treatment Contracts Act, withdrawal of domiciliary ventilation at the request of a patient constitutes normal medical care and concerns neither the assessment of, nor the compliance with, a request for euthanasia. Currently, there is no Dutch guidance or guideline containing practical advice regarding the medical, ethical, organisational and supportive aspects of withdrawal of domiciliary ventilation. This paper addresses the planning necessary for the patient and between treating professionals, for the organisation and implementation of withdrawal of domiciliary ventilation at the patient's home, a nursing home or hospice.

Ethical challenges in tracheostomy-assisted ventilation in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The special nature of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and tracheostomy with invasive ventilation (TIV) leads to challenges that can be difficult in two senses: not only to handle well, but also to discuss with patients and other involved stakeholders. Because of the delicate nature of interpersonal relations and communication in ALS, some of the downsides to TIV may almost take on a nature of taboo, making them difficult to raise for open discussion. Yet these ethical challenges are important to be aware of, not only for health professionals and managers but, arguably, also for patients and next of kin. They are important also for a wider professional and societal debate about whether and to whom TIV should be offered. In this paper we highlight and examine ethical challenges in TIV for ALS, with a special emphasis on those that are hard to discuss openly and that therefore might fail to be addressed. The analysis is structured by the four core principles of healthcare ethics: beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for patient autonomy, and justice.

[Suspension of Respiratory Support in Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis]. / Suspensión del Soporte Respiratorio en Enfermos con Esclerosis Lateral Amiotrófica.

Decision making in advanced Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) patients keeps on being a controversial issue. The aim of this work is to discuss ethical implications of withdrawing respiratory support treatment in patients with ALS. Through a bibliographic search on Pubmed database (2010-2016) we investigated whether or not the use of Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) and Mechanical Ventilation (MV) would increase survival and quality of life. We included 38 review articles. From these papers, results and ethical implications of initiating and mainly withdrawing respiratory support were analyzed. Survival time increased with NIV and with MV. Quality of life, above all according to physiological criteria, improved with NIV but regarding MV it remained controversial. Implementation and future withdrawal of MV seemed open to medical and ethical discussion. From a perspective of the intrinsic dignity of every human being, whatever its quality of life was, and knowing that no effective therapies for the underlying disease are available, the decision to remove MV in a patient with advanced ALS requires: knowledge of the will of the patient and, above all, evaluating whether this respiratory support measure is becoming objectively disproportionate.

Racial and Geographic Disparities in Interhospital ICU Transfers.

OBJECTIVES: Interhospital transfer, a common intervention, may be subject to healthcare disparities. In mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis, we hypothesize that disparities not disease related would be found between patients who were and were not transferred. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide Inpatient Sample, 2006-2012. PATIENTS: Patients over 18 years old with a primary diagnosis of sepsis who underwent mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We obtained age, gender, length of stay, race, insurance coverage, do not resuscitate status, and Elixhauser comorbidities. The outcome used was interhospital transfer from a small- or medium-sized hospital to a larger acute care hospital. Of 55,208,382 hospitalizations, 46,406 patients met inclusion criteria. In the multivariate model, patients were less likely to be transferred if the following were present: older age (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.978-0.982), black race (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89), Hispanic race (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90), South region hospital (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88), teaching hospital (odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.28-0.33), and do not resuscitate status (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.15-0.25). CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis, we found significant disparities in race and geographic location not explained by medical diagnoses or illness severity.

Decision-Making on Withholding or Withdrawing Life Support in the ICU: A Worldwide Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Many critically ill patients who die will do so after a decision has been made to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining therapy. The objective of this study was to document the characteristics of ICU patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment, including the types of supportive treatments used, patterns of organ dysfunction, and international differences, including gross national income (GNI). METHODS: In this observational cohort study conducted in 730 ICUs in 84 countries, all adult patients admitted between May 8, 2012, and May 18, 2012 (except admissions for routine postoperative surveillance), were included. RESULTS: The analysis included 9,524 patients, with a hospital mortality of 24%. A decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment was reported during the ICU stay in 1,259 patients (13%), including 820 (40%) nonsurvivors and 439 (5%) survivors. Hospital mortality in patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment was 69%. The proportion of deaths in patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment ranged from 10% in South Asia to 67% in Oceania. Decisions to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment were less frequent in low/lower-middle GNI countries than in high GNI countries (6% vs 14%; P < .001). Greater disease severity, presence of ≥ 2 organ failures, severe comorbidities, medical and trauma admissions, and admission from the ED or hospital floor were independent predictors of a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable worldwide variability in decisions to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatments. Interestingly, almost one-third of patients with a decision to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment left the hospital alive.