RESUMO
Due to COVID-19's strain on health systems across the globe, triage protocols determine how to allocate scarce medical resources with the worthy goal of maximising the number of lives saved. However, due to racial biases and long-standing health inequities, the common method of ranking patients based on impersonal numeric representations of their morbidity is associated with disproportionately pronounced racial disparities. In response, policymakers have issued statements of solidarity. However, translating support into responsive COVID-19 policy is rife with complexity. Triage does not easily lend itself to race-based exceptions. Reordering triage queues based on an individual patient's racial affiliation has been considered but may be divisive and difficult to implement. And while COVID-19 hospital policies may be presented as rigidly focused on saving the most lives, many make exceptions for those deemed worthy by policymakers such as front-line healthcare workers, older physicians, pregnant women and patients with disabilities. These exceptions demonstrate creativity and ingenuity-hallmarks of policymakers' abilities to flexibly respond to urgent societal concerns-which should also be extended to patients of colour. This paper dismantles common arguments against the confrontation of racial inequity within COVID-19 triage protocols, highlights concerns related to existing proposals and proposes a new paradigm to increase equity when allocating scarce COVID-19 resources.
RESUMO
The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has caused shortages of life-sustaining medical resources, and future waves of the virus may cause further scarcity. The Yale New Haven Health System developed a triage protocol to allocate scarce medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the primary goal of saving the most lives possible, and a secondary goal of making triage assessments and decisions consistent, transparent, and fair. We outline the process of developing the triage protocol, summarize the protocol itself, and discuss the major ethical challenges encountered, along with our answers to these challenges. These challenges include (1) the role of age and chronic comorbidities; (2) evaluating children and pregnant patients; (3) racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in health; (4) prioritization of healthcare workers; and (5) balancing clinical judgment versus protocolized assessments. We conclude with a review of the limitations of our protocol and the lessons learned. We hope that a robust public discussion of such protocols and the ethical challenges that they raise will result in the fairest possible processes, less need for triage, and more lives saved during future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar public health emergencies.
Assuntos
Alocação de Recursos para a Atenção à Saúde/ética , Recursos em Saúde/provisão & distribuição , Pandemias/ética , Triagem/ética , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Criança , Infecções por Coronavirus , Emergências , Feminino , Humanos , Pneumonia Viral , Gravidez , Saúde Pública , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
Legislative strategies for reducing infant abandonment and neonaticide developed in response to a series of sensational cases that occurred in Texas in 1999. The media coverage of these cases implied that the incidence of the crime was increasing, and Texas legislators responded with a law permitting parents to anonymously surrender their newborn at designated locations such as hospitals. This was the first "safe haven" law. Interest peaked nationwide, and by 2008 all states had a similar version of the law. These laws can trigger rapid cessation of parental rights and a fast-tracked adoption to a preapproved family, reflecting the legislators' assumption that it is better to permit struggling mothers to leave their children with well-intentioned strangers than to abandon the children or end their lives. These laws, however, suffer from several inadequacies.