COVID-19-Related Ethics Consultations at a Cancer Center in New York City: A Content Review of Ethics Consultations During the Early Stages of the Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised a variety of ethical dilemmas for health care providers. Limited data are available on how a patient's concomitant cancer diagnosis affected ethical concerns raised during the early stages of the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all COVID-related ethics consultations registered in a prospectively collected ethics database at a tertiary cancer center between March 14, 2020, and April 28, 2020. Primary and secondary ethical issues, as well as important contextual factors, were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical ethics consultations were performed on 24 patients with cancer (58.3% male; median age, 65.5 years). The most common primary ethical issues were code status (n = 11), obligation to provide nonbeneficial treatment (n = 3), patient autonomy (n = 3), resource allocation (n = 3), and delivery of care wherein the risk to staff might outweigh the potential benefit to the patient (n = 3). An additional nine consultations raised concerns about staff safety in the context of likely nonbeneficial treatment as a secondary issue. Unique contextual issues identified included concerns about public safety for patients requesting discharge against medical advice (n = 3) and difficulties around decision making, especially with regard to code status because of an inability to reach surrogates (n = 3). CONCLUSION: During the early pandemic, the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 spurred a number of ethics consultations, which were largely focused on code status. Most cases also raised concerns about staff safety in the context of limited benefit to patients, a highly unusual scenario at our institution that may have been triggered by critical supply shortages.

Withholding Treatment From the Dying Patient: The Influence of Medical School on Students' Attitudes.

PURPOSE: To determine motives and attitudes towards life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) by clinical and preclinical medical students. METHODS: This was a scenario-based questionnaire that presented patients with a limited life expectancy. The survey was distributed among 455 medical students in preclinical and clinical years. Students were asked to rate their willingness to perform LSTs and rank the motives for doing so. The effect of medical education was then investigated after adjustment for age, gender, religion, religiosity, country of origin, and marital status. RESULTS: Preclinical students had a significantly higher willingness to perform LSTs in all cases. This was observed in all treatments offered in cases of a metastatic oncologic patient and an otherwise healthy man after a traumatic brain injury (TBI). In the case of an elderly woman on long-term care, preclinical students had higher willingness to supply vasopressors but not perform an intubation, feed with a nasogastric tube, or treat with a continuous positive air-pressure ventilator. Both preclinical and clinical students had high willingness to perform resuscitation on a twelve-year-old boy with a TBI. Differences in motivation factors were also seen. DISCUSSION: Preclinical students had a greater willingness to treat compared to clinical students in all cases and with most medical treatments offered. This is attributed mainly to changes along the medical curriculum. Changes in reasons for supplying LSTs were also documented.

How Should Refusal of Tracheostomy as Part of an Adolescent's Perioperative Planned Intubation Be Regarded?

Here we present a case of a patient in terminal respiratory failure refusing to consent to emergent tracheostomy in the setting of an anticipated difficult intubation. We examine ethical concerns that arise from deviations from the standard of care in the operative setting and the anesthesiologist's sense of culpability. Finally, we will review the ethical arguments and guidelines that support anesthesiologists' participation in palliative operative procedures when limitations on resuscitation are in place.

Ethics of re-hearsing procedures on a corpse.

You are the attending surgeon of a homeless pedestrian who sustained multiple injuries when struck by a car. He died soon after being brought to the emergency department. It is late in the evening. A first-year resident and a medical student have been helping with the failed attempt at resuscitation. The emergency department is empty, except for your case. A central line kit lies on the bed, opened but not used. The junior resident asks your permission for herself and the student to practice the technique of subclavian cauterization and tracheal intubation on the fresh cadaver to get a "feel" for the procedures. There is no medical simulation for these procedures at your medical center. The best ethical response is: A. Tell them to go ahead and practice. B. They can only practice intubation because it leaves no external wounds. C. You should supervise them yourself to assure educational benefit. D. They should wait until you get permission from the medical examiner. E. The present case is not appropriate for educational purposes.