[Intensive care and priority setting during catastrophe or war]. / Intensivvård och prioriteringar i fredstida katastrofer och krig.

In this article we discuss some ethically and legally controversial issues in the Swedish priority guidelines for intensive care during the recent covid pandemic. We show how the Swedish ethics platform for priority setting constitutes a robust starting point for such guidance, but that there is a lack of detail leaving some of the more challenging situations without explicit guidance. To provide guidance, which we have reason to do in order to avoid inequality and arbitrariness, we should try to interpret the ethics platform, based on how it is applied in practice together with ethical reasoning. In this article, we illustrate this by focusing on contested guidance concerning biological age when distributing scarce intensive care beds. We conclude that biological age should be interpreted in terms of long-term survival. We also conclude that the ethical platform does not provide guidance in these challenging situations, but needs interpretation. Therefore, there is a need of a legal overview of the principles in order to create an even stronger basis for support in the future.

[Priority setting in intensive care from an ethical perspective]. / Prioriteringar i intensivvården ur ett etiskt perspektiv.

Priority setting at intensive care units is legally regulated in accordance with the so-called ethical platform, which states that all priorities must be based on three lexically ranked principles: the principle of human dignity (a ban on discrimination, e.g. based on social standing), the principle of needs and solidarity, and the principle of cost-effectiveness. Prioritization for intensive care is particularly difficult as it requires comparisons between widely different patient categories, occurs in acute situations and is fraught with great uncertainty about the prognosis. Sometimes the degree of severity is maximal for several patients: without treatment, they die. Then treatment effect and cost-effectiveness become more decisive for prioritization decisions. Moreover, withholding and withdrawing intensive care are increasingly considered as morally equivalent. Difficult priority decisions risk moral stress among the intensive care staff.

Brain Death: Medical, Ethical, Cultural, and Legal Aspects.

The development of critical care stimulated brain death criteria formulation in response to concerns on treatment resources and unregulated organ procurement. The diagnosis centered on irreversible loss of brain function and subsequent systemic physiologic collapse and was subsequently codified into law. With improved critical care, physiologic collapse (while predominant) is not inevitable-provoking criticisms of the ethical and legal foundation for brain death. Other criteria have been unsuccessfully proposed, but irreversibility remains the conceptual foundation. Conflicts can arise when families reject the diagnosis-resulting in ethical, cultural, and communication challenges and implications for diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Opinion & Special Articles: Shared Decision-Making During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Three Bullets in 3 Hemispheres.

Patients with traumatic brain injury may be dependent on the decision-making of their families. Restrictive visitation policies implemented during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disproportionately affect these patients and their families. This narrative aims to illustrate this phenomenon and catalyze discussions regarding the need for careful evaluation of restrictive family visitation policies and exceptions that may be required for patients with brain injuries.

Analysis of lawsuits related to diagnostic errors from point-of-care ultrasound in internal medicine, paediatrics, family medicine and critical care in the USA.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to identify the extent of diagnostic error lawsuits related to point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in internal medicine, paediatrics, family medicine and critical care, of which little is known. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of the Westlaw legal database for indexed state and federal lawsuits involving the diagnostic use of POCUS in internal medicine, paediatrics, family medicine and critical care. Retrieved cases were reviewed independently by three physicians to identify cases relevant to our study objective. A lawyer secondarily reviewed any cases with discrepancies between the three reviewers. RESULTS: Our search criteria returned 131 total cases. Ultrasound was mentioned in relation to the lawsuit claim in 70 of the cases returned. In these cases, the majority were formal ultrasounds performed and reviewed by the radiology department, echocardiography studies performed by cardiologists or obstetrical ultrasounds. There were no cases of internal medicine, paediatrics, family medicine or critical care physicians being subjected to adverse legal action for their diagnostic use of POCUS. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that concerns regarding the potential for lawsuits related to POCUS in the fields of internal medicine, paediatrics, family medicine and critical care are not substantiated by indexed state and federal filed lawsuits.

Guardianship and End-of-Life Care for Veterans with Dementia in Nursing Homes.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Experts have suggested that patients represented by professional guardians receive higher intensity end-of-life treatment than other patients, but there is little corresponding empirical data. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Among veterans aged 65 and older who died from 2011 to 2013, we used Minimum Data Set assessments to identify those who were nursing home residents and had moderately severe or severe dementia. We applied methods developed in prior work to determine which of these veterans had professional guardians. Decedent veterans with professional guardians were matched to decedent veterans without guardians in a 1:4 ratio, according to age, sex, race, dementia severity, and nursing facility type (VA based vs non-VA). MEASUREMENTS: Our primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) admission in the last 30 days of life. Secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the last 30 days of life, feeding tube placement in the last 90 days of life, three or more nursing home-to-hospital transfers in the last 90 days of life, and in-hospital death. RESULTS: ICU admission was more common among patients with professional guardians than matched controls (17.5% vs 13.7%), but the difference was not statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio = 1.33; 95% confidence interval = .89-1.99). There were no significant differences in receipt of any other treatment; nor was there a consistent pattern. Mechanical ventilation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation were more common among patients with professional guardians, and feeding tube placement, three or more end-of-life hospitalizations, and in-hospital death were more common among matched controls. CONCLUSION: Rates of high-intensity treatment were similar whether or not a nursing home resident with dementia was represented by a professional guardian. This is in part because high-intensity treatment occurred more frequently than expected among patients without guardians.

The notion of grievous bodily harm and the legal obligation to notify law enforcement authorities.

The obligation of physicians and other health professionals under Art. 240 § 1 of the Criminal Code instructs them to notify the law enforcement authority responsible for prosecuting crimes (in particular the Police or public prosecutor's office) when prohibited acts are committed, attempted, or prepared. The list of such acts is enumerative, indicating the numbers of the relevant articles and paragraphs. On 13th July 2017 Art. 156 of the Criminal Code extended the list, adding grievous bodily harm as a prohibited act. Accordingly, this act introduced the legal obligation of denunciation, which outweighs medical privacy in such situations. As it can be difficult for a clinician to identify which injuries meet the criteria of grievous bodily harm, the authors of the paper have described in detail all of its forms with specific examples, since failure to comply with that obligation is punishable by up to three years of deprivation of liberty.

Consent for critical care research after death from COVID-19: Arguments for a waiver.

Pandemics challenge clinicians and scientists in many ways, especially when the virus is novel and disease expression becomes variable or unpredictable. Under such circumstances, research becomes critical to inform clinical care and protect future patients. Given that severely ill patients admitted to intensive care units are at high risk of mortality, establishing the cause of death at a histopathological level could prove invaluable in contributing to the understanding of COVID-19. Postmortem examination including autopsies would be optimal. However, in the context of high contagion and limited personal protective equipment, full autopsies are not being conducted in South Africa (SA). A compromise would require tissue biopsies and samples to be taken immediately after death to obtain diagnostic information, which could potentially guide care of future patients, or generate hypotheses for finding needed solutions. In the absence of an advance written directive (including a will or medical record) providing consent for postmortem research, proxy consent is the next best option. However, obtaining consent from distraught family members, under circumstances of legally mandated lockdown when strict infection control measures limit visitors in hospitals, is challenging. Their extreme vulnerability and emotional distress make full understanding of the rationale and consent process difficult either before or upon death of a family member. While it is morally distressing to convey a message of death telephonically, it is inhumane to request consent for urgent research in the same conversation. Careful balancing of the principles of autonomy, non-maleficence and justice becomes an ethical imperative. Under such circumstances, a waiver of consent, preferably followed by deferred proxy consent, granted by a research ethics committee in keeping with national ethics guidance and legislation, would fulfil the basic premise of care and research: first do no harm. This article examines the SA research ethics framework, guidance and legislation to justify support for a waiver of consent followed by deferred proxy consent, when possible, in urgent research after death to inform current and future care to contain the pandemic in the public interest.

Tragic choices in intensive care during the COVID-19 pandemic: on fairness, consistency and community.

Tragic choices arise during the COVID-19 pandemic when the limited resources made available in acute medical settings cannot be accessed by all patients who need them. In these circumstances, healthcare rationing is unavoidable. It is important in any healthcare rationing process that the interests of the community are recognised, and that decision-making upholds these interests through a fair and consistent process of decision-making. Responding to recent calls (1) to safeguard individuals' legal rights in decision-making in intensive care, and (2) for new authoritative national guidance for decision-making, this paper seeks to clarify what consistency and fairness demand in healthcare rationing during the COVID-19 pandemic, from both a legal and ethical standpoint. The paper begins with a brief review of UK law concerning healthcare resource allocation, considering how community interests and individual rights have been marshalled in judicial deliberation about the use of limited health resources within the National Health Service (NHS). It is then argued that an important distinction needs to be drawn between procedural and outcome consistency, and that a procedurally consistent decision-making process ought to be favoured. Congruent with the position that UK courts have adopted for resource allocation decision-making in the NHS more generally, specific requirements for a procedural framework and substantive triage criteria to be applied within that framework during the COVID-19 pandemic are considered in detail.

COVID-19: legal implications for critical care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented challenge for the provision of critical care. Anticipating an unsustainable burden on the health service, the UK Government introduced numerous legislative measures culminating in the Coronavirus Act, which interfere with existing legislation and rights. However, the existing standards and legal frameworks relevant to critical care clinicians are not extinguished, but anticipated to adapt to a new context. This new context influences the standard of care that can be reasonably provided and yields many human rights considerations, for example, in the use of restraints, or the restrictions placed on patients and visitors under the Infection Prevention and Control guidance. The changing landscape has also highlighted previously unrecognised legal dilemmas. The perceived difficulties in the provision of personal protective equipment for employees pose a legal risk for Trusts and a regulatory risk for clinicians. The spectre of rationing critical care poses a number of legal issues. Notably, the flux between clinical decisions based on best interests towards decisions explicitly based on resource considerations should be underpinned by an authoritative public policy decision to preserve legitimacy and lawfulness. Such a policy should be medically coherent, legally robust and ethically justified. The current crisis poses numerous challenges for clinicians aspiring to remain faithful to medicolegal and human rights principles developed over many decades, especially when such principles could easily be dismissed. However, it is exactly at such times that these principles are needed the most and clinicians play a disproportionate role in safeguarding them for the most vulnerable.

Availability of Internationally Controlled Essential Medicines in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Section 2 of the 2019 World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines includes opioid analgesics formulations commonly used for the control of pain and respiratory distress, as well as sedative and anxiolytic substances such as midazolam and diazepam. These medicines, essential to palliative care, are regulated under the international drug control conventions overseen by United Nations specialized agencies and treaty bodies and under national drug control laws. Those national laws and regulations directly affect bedside availability of Internationally Controlled Essential Medicines (ICEMs). The complex interaction between national regulatory systems and global supply chains (now impacted by COVID-19 pandemic) directly affects bedside availability of ICEMs and patient care. Despite decades of global civil society advocacy in the United Nations system, ICEMs have remained chronically unavailable, inaccessible, and unaffordable in low- and-middle-income countries, and there are recent reports of shortages in high-income countries as well. The most prevalent symptoms in COVID-19 are breathlessness, cough, drowsiness, anxiety, agitation, and delirium. Frequently used medicines include opioids such as morphine or fentanyl and midazolam, all of them listed as ICEMs. This paper describes the issues related to the lack of availability and limited access to ICEMs during the COVID-19 pandemic in both intensive and palliative care patients in countries of all income levels and makes recommendations for improving access.

[Ethical, deontologic and legal considerations about SIAARTI Document "Clinical ethics recommendations for the allocation of intensive care treatments, in exceptional, resource-limited circumstances".] / Considerazioni etiche, deontologiche e giuridiche sul Documento SIAARTI "Raccomandazioni di etica clinica per l'ammissione a trattamenti intensivi e per la loro sospensione, in condizioni eccezionali di squilibrio tra necessità e risorse disponibili".

On 6 March 2020, the Italian Society of Anaesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive care (SIAARTI) published the document "Clinical Ethics Recommendations for Admission to and Suspension of Intensive Care in Exceptional Conditions of Imbalance between Needs and Available Resources". The document, which aims to propose treatment decision-making criteria in the face of exceptional imbalances between health needs and available resources, has produced strong reactions, within the medical-scientific community, in the academic world, and in the media. In the current context of international public health emergency caused by the CoViD-19 epidemic, this work aims to explain the ethical, deontological and legal bases of the SIAARTI Document and to propose methodologic and argumentative integrations that are useful for understanding and placing in context the decision-making criteria proposed. The working group that contributed to the drafting of this paper agrees that it is appropriate that healthcare personnel, who is particularly committed to taking care of those who are currently in need of intensive or sub-intensive care, should benefit from clear operational indications that are useful to orient care and, at the same time, that the population should know in advance which criteria will guide the tragic choices that may fall on each one of us. This contribution therefore firstly reflects on the appropriateness of the SIAARTI standpoint and the objectives of the SIAARTI Document. It then turns to demonstrate how the recommendations it proposes can be framed within a shared interdisciplinary, ethical, deontological and legal perspective.

Age discrimination in critical care triage in South Africa: The law and the allocation of scarce health resources in the COVID-19 pandemic.

No one may be refused emergency medical treatment in South Africa (SA). Yet score-based categorical exclusions used in critical care triage guidelines disproportionately discriminate against older adults, the cognitively and physically impaired, and the disabled. Adults over the age of 60, who make up 9.1% of the SA population, are most likely to present with disabilities and comorbidities at triage. Score-based models, drawn from international precedents, deny these patients admission to an ICU when resources are constrained, such as during influenza and COVID-19 outbreaks. The Critical Care Society of Southern Africa and the South African Medical Association adopted the Clinical Frailty Scale, which progressively withholds admission to ICUs based on age, frailty and comorbidities in a manner that potentially contravenes constitutional and equality prohibitions against unfair discrimination. The legal implications for healthcare providers are extensive, ranging from personal liability to hate speech and crimes against humanity. COVID-19 guidelines and score-based triage protocols must be revised urgently to eliminate unlawful discrimination against legally protected categories of patients in SA, including the disabled and the elderly. That will ensure legal certainty for health practitioners, and secure the full protections of the law to which the health-vulnerable and those of advanced age are constitutionally entitled.

Do COVID-19 patients needing extended care in an intensive care unit fall under the 'emergency medical treatment' provisions of the South African Constitution?

Whether COVID-19 patients in need of extended care in an intensive care unit qualify for 'emergency medical treatment' is answered by considering the Constitution, the meaning of emergency medical treatment, and whether such patients are in an incurable chronic condition. Considering ethical guidelines for the withholding and withdrawal of treatment may assist a court in determining whether a healthcare practitioner has acted with the degree of skill and care required of a reasonably competent practitioner in his or her branch of the profession.

View. The Dutch Critical Care Triage Guideline on Covid-19: Not Necessarily Discriminatory.

Recently, the Dutch Medical Doctors Association (Federatie Medisch Specialisten en de Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst) drafted the 'Covid-19 triage guideline ICU admission' that has age cut-offs that deprioritise or exclude the elderly. Such an age limit for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in case of a national emergency seems discriminatory, and thus, is it inappropriate to use, or not? The question is whether age in itself can be considered as an acceptable selection criterion.