Ethics, Personal Responsibility and the Pandemic: A New Triage Paradigm.

BACKGROUND: How much of a role should personal responsibility play in triage criteria? Because voluntarily unvaccinated people are not fulfilling their societal obligations during a pandemic, the ethical principle of justice demands that they reap the egalitarian consequences. These consequences could include lower priority for care, an increasing number of employer and government mandates, and restrictions to entering many entertainment venues. DISCUSSION: Voluntarily unvaccinated individuals increase the chance that the COVID-19 virus will mutate and spread, endangering the entire population, but especially those who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons, children for whom vaccines have yet to be approved, and older adult and immunocompromised people for whom the vaccine is less effective. When voluntarily unvaccinated individuals seek medical treatment for COVID-19 (94% of patients with COVID-19 in U.S. intensive care units), they use resources needed for those with non-COVID-related illnesses. CONCLUSIONS: A method to balance resource allocation between those patients who refuse vaccination and patients who need the same health care resources is necessary. An ethical solution is to give those who are voluntarily unvaccinated a lower priority for admission and for the use of other health care resources. Current in-hospital triage models can easily be modified to accomplish this. This substantive change in practice may encourage more people to get vaccinated.

Applying Bioethics Across Cultures.

BACKGROUND: In our multicultural society, as well as when working internationally, emergency physicians (EPs) frequently see patients from cultures with communitarian or hierarchal structures. These groups may rely on traditional medical practices and view health care decisions through a lens other than patient autonomy. This leads to uncertainty about who can legitimately make decisions for patients and how to apply basic ethical principles. Because the commonly taught ethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and distributive justice) are loosely defined, they provide little help to EPs when working with cultures that de-emphasize Western individualism. CASE REPORT: The case illustrates this complexity by detailing how visiting EPs dealt with leaders from a communitarian culture who demanded that a preteen be treated for a femur fracture by a traditional bone healer rather than with modern techniques. DISCUSSION: The Western-trained clinicians struggled with their ethical responsibility to protect the child's welfare within the social setting: What should beneficence look like in this situation and to whom did it apply? More broadly, this paper examines the bases on which health care professionals might justify overruling parental decisions. It also asks whether the lack of clarity of the most used Western ethical principles suggests the need to broaden clinical ethics education to include issues from other cultures and settings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite principlism's shortcomings, the ease of teaching ethics to health care providers by grouping basic philosophical ideas suggests that we continue to use its structure. As educators and practitioners, we should, however, expand the concept of principlism to better address ethical values and issues found across different cultures.

Healthcare Ethics During a Pandemic.

As clinicians and support personnel struggle with their responsibilities to treat during the current COVID-19 pandemic, several ethical issues have emerged. Will healthcare workers and support staff fulfill their duty to treat in the face of high risks? Will institutional and government leaders at all levels do the right things to help alleviate healthcare workers risks and fears? Will physicians be willing to make hard, resource-allocation decisions if they cannot first husband or improvise alternatives?With our healthcare facilities and governments unprepared for this inevitable disaster, front-line doctors, advanced providers, nurses, EMS, and support personnel struggle with acute shortages of equipment-both to treat patients and protect themselves. With their personal and possibly their family's lives and health at risk, they must weigh the option of continuing to work or retreat to safety. This decision, made daily, is based on professional and personal values, how they perceive existing risks-including available protective measures, and their perception of the level and transparency of information they receive. Often, while clinicians get this information, support personnel do not, leading to absenteeism and deteriorating healthcare services. Leadership can use good risk communication (complete, widely transmitted, and transparent) to align healthcare workers' risk perceptions with reality. They also can address the common problems healthcare workers must overcome to continue working (ie, risk mitigation techniques). Physicians, if they cannot sufficiently husband or improvise lifesaving resources, will have to face difficult triage decisions. Ideally, they will use a predetermined plan, probably based on the principles of Utilitarianism (maximizing the greatest good) and derived from professional and community input. Unfortunately, none of these plans is optimal.

Alternative Care Sites: An Option in Disasters.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the limited surge capacity of the healthcare system is being quickly overwhelmed. Similar scenarios play out when an institution's systems fail, or when local or regional disasters occur. In these situations, it becomes necessary to use one or more alternative care sites (ACS). Situated in a variety of non-healthcare structures, ACS may be used for ambulatory, acute, subacute, or chronic care. Developing alternative care facilities is the disaster-planning step that moves communities from talking to doing. This commitment pays real dividends if a disaster of any magnitude strikes. This paper discusses the basic criteria for selecting, establishing and ultimately closing an ACS, difficulties of administration, staffing, security, and providing basic supplies and equipment.

Audiovisual recording in the emergency department: Ethical and legal issues.

Emergency physicians, organizations and healthcare institutions should recognize the value to clinicians and patients of HIPAA-compliant audiovisual recording in emergency departments (ED). They should promote consistent specialty-wide policies that emphasize protecting patient privacy, particularly in patient-care areas, where patients and staff have a reasonable expectation of privacy and should generally not be recorded without their prospective consent. While recordings can help patients understand and recall vital parts of their ED experience and discharge instructions, using always-on recording devices should be regulated and restricted to areas in which patient care is not occurring. Healthcare institutions should provide HIPAA-compliant methods to securely store and transmit healthcare-sensitive recordings and establish protocols. Protocols should include both consent procedures their staff can use to record and publish (print or electronic) audiovisual images and appropriate disciplinary measures for staff that violate them. EDs and institutions should publicly post their rules governing ED recordings, including a ban on all surreptitious or unconsented recordings. However, local institutions may lack the ability to enforce these rules without multi-party consent statutes in those states (the majority) where it doesn't exist. Clinicians imaging patients in international settings should be guided by the same ethical norms as they are at their home institution.

Ethics of Virtual Reality in Medical Education and Licensure.

The aim of this section is to expand and accelerate advances in curriculum developments and in methods of teaching bioethics.

The Rapid Disaster Evaluation System (RaDES): A Plan to Improve Global Disaster Response by Privatizing the Assessment Component.

BACKGROUND: Emergency medicine personnel frequently respond to major disasters. They expect to have an effective and efficient management system to elegantly allocate available resources. Despite claims to the contrary, experience demonstrates this rarely occurs. OBJECTIVES: This article describes privatizing disaster assessment using a single-purposed, accountable, and well-trained organization. The goal is to achieve elegant disaster assessment, rather than repeatedly exhorting existing groups to do it. DISCUSSION: The Rapid Disaster Evaluation System (RaDES) would quickly and efficiently assess a postdisaster population's needs. It would use an accountable nongovernmental agency's teams with maximal training, mobility, and flexibility. Designed to augment the Inter-Agency Standing Committee's 2015 Emergency Response Preparedness Plan, RaDES would provide the initial information needed to avoid haphazard and overlapping disaster responses. Rapidly deployed teams would gather information from multiple sources and continually communicate those findings to their base, which would then disseminate them to disaster coordinators in a concise, coherent, and transparent way. CONCLUSIONS: The RaDES concept represents an elegant, minimally bureaucratic, and effective rapid response to major disasters. However, its implementation faces logistical, funding, and political obstacles. Developing and maintaining RaDES would require significant funding and political commitment to coordinate the numerous agencies that claim to be performing the same tasks. Although simulations can demonstrate efficacy and deficiencies, only field tests will demonstrate RaDES' power to improve interagency coordination and decrease the cost of major disaster response. At the least, the RaDES concept should serve as a model for discussing how to practicably improve our current chaotic disaster responses.

Medical planning for extended remote expeditions.

Remote extended expeditions often support scientific research and commercial resource exploration or extraction in hostile environments. Medical support for these expeditions is inherently complex and requires in-depth planning. To be successful, this planning must include substantial input from clinicians with experience in remote, emergency, and prehospital medicine and from personnel familiar with the proposed working environment. Using the guidelines discussed in this paper will help ensure that planners consider all necessary, medically relevant elements before launching an extended remote expedition. The 10 key elements of a workable remote healthcare system are to: 1. Optimize workers' fitness. 2. Anticipate treatable problems. 3. Stock appropriate medications. 4. Provide appropriate equipment. 5. Provide adequate logistical support. 6. Provide adequate medical communications. 7. Know the environmental limitations on patient access and evacuation. 8. Use qualified providers. 9. Arrange for knowledgeable and timely consultations. 10. Establish and distribute rational administrative rules. Planners using these guidelines may better be able to generate a strategy that optimizes the participants' health benefits, the expedition's productivity, and the expedition sponsor's cost savings.

Gifts to physicians from industry: the debate evolves.

In October 2009, the board of directors of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) approved a major revision to ACEP's "Gifts to Emergency Physicians from Industry" policy. The revised policy is a response to increasing debate and calls for restriction of the long-standing biomedical industry practice of giving promotional gifts to individual physicians. This article outlines the history of professional attention to gift giving and reviews recent contributions to the ongoing debate over its justifiability, including professional association recommendations for limitation or prohibition of the practice. The article concludes with a description of the provisions of the revised ACEP gifts policy and brief reflection on the future of this practice.

Triage in medicine, part II: Underlying values and principles.

Part I of this 2-article series reviewed the concept and history of triage and the settings in which triage is commonly practiced. We now examine the moral foundations of the practice of triage. We begin by recognizing the moral significance of triage decisions. We then note that triage systems tend to promote the values of human life, health, efficient use of resources, and fairness, and tend to disregard the values of autonomy, fidelity, and ownership of resources. We conclude with an analysis of three principles of distributive justice that have been proposed to guide triage decisions.

Who's buying lunch: are gifts to surgeons from industry bad for patients?

Why does gifting exist in the medical marketplace? It provides a sales advantage in a competitive marketplace by establishing crucial relationships with the patients' fiduciary: the physician and surgeon. Do gifts to physicians from industry harm patients? One can cite mountains of indirect evidence that they do, and maybe in the case of recalled devices and drugs there are actual corpses, but these examples are retrospective and it is impossible to prove that removing detailing eliminates the harm. Banning gifts to surgeons would not completely fix the ethical problem of pharmaceutical and device marketing. Gifts are important because they buy access and foster relationships, but inherent bias in research and the medical literature makes it very difficult to remain objective. It is a race, and education has not kept pace with advertising; only 10% of 575 internal medicine physicians thought they had had sufficient training during medical school and residency regarding professional interaction with sales representatives. Would banning gifts help at all? Would enforcing an unpopular ethical code protect patients? There might be a small improvement, but not as significant as eliminating representatives and product samples altogether. This is not likely to happen without an enormous fight against the wealthiest industry in America. The solution is education. To borrow industry's argument, physicians and surgeons are ethical creatures with capacity for judgment and integrity. They need to understand and believe the magnitude of the problem. Detailing exists because there is a market for it, empowering surgeons with ethical training reduces the demand for goodies, and at some point the popular choice will be to buy their own lunch. Business ethics are not medical ethics. Industry is behaving exactly as it must to maximize profits. Although it is painful for some surgeons, surgical residencies, and professional organizations to envision a future with diminished corporate gifts, it is every surgeon's responsibility to consider whether their dealings with the pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries withstand the harsh light of realities presented herein.