Public Good versus Private "Goods": Ethical Implications of Drug Shortages on Anesthesiology Practice.

Drug shortages remain a serious and widespread problem affecting all health systems and patients. Anesthesiology practice is strongly impacted by shortages of sterile injectable drugs, resulting in a negative impact on the quality of care. Understanding the root causes of drug shortages guides the anesthesiologist toward an ethical response. While rationing is a common consideration in secular ethics, and indeed rationing strategies are utilized, the use of rationing alone risks normalizing and perpetuating the drug shortage problem. Drug shortages are the direct result of a market failure brought on by lack of oversight of drug production standards in some cases as well as by the impact of intermediary purchasing groups on costs and availability of drugs. Legislation needs to reestablish a responsible, competitive, and robust manufacturing drug market.

Is a larger patient benefit always better in healthcare priority setting?

When considering the introduction of a new intervention in a budget constrained healthcare system, priority setting based on fair principles is fundamental. In many jurisdictions, a multi-criteria approach with several different considerations is employed, including severity and cost-effectiveness. Such multi-criteria approaches raise questions about how to balance different considerations against each other, and how to understand the logical or normative relations between them. For example, some jurisdictions make explicit reference to a large patient benefit as such a consideration. However, since patient benefit is part of a cost-effectiveness assessment it is not clear how to balance considerations of greater patient benefit against considerations of severity and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this paper is to explore the role of a large patient benefit as an independent criterion for priority setting in a healthcare system also considering severity and cost-effectiveness. By taking the opportunity cost of new interventions (i.e., the health forgone in patients already receiving treatment) into account, we argue that patient benefit has a complex relationship to priority setting. More specifically, it cannot be reasonably concluded that large patient benefits should be given priority if severity, cost-effectiveness, and opportunity costs are held constant. Since we cannot find general support for taking patient benefit into account as an independent criterion from any of the most discussed theories about distributive justice: utilitarianism, prioritarianism, telic egalitarianism and sufficientarianism, it is reasonable to avoid doing so. Hence, given the complexity of the role of patient benefit, we conclude that in priority practice, a large patient benefit should not be considered as an independent criterion, on top of considerations of severity and cost-effectiveness.

Ethical prioritization of critical care resources during COVID-19: perspectives from Italy and the United States.

This article examines some of the ethical challenges of prioritizing intensive care resources during the Covid-19 pandemic by comparing the Italian and United States contexts. After presenting an overview to the clinical, ethical, and public debates in Italy, the article will discuss the development of triage allocation protocols in United States hospitals. Resource allocation criteria underwent increased scrutiny and critique in both countries, which resulted in modified professional and expert guidance regarding healthcare ethics during times of emergency and resource scarcity.

Protocol to assess performance of crisis standards of care guidelines for clinical triage.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US states developed Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) algorithms to triage allocation of scarce resources to maximize population-wide benefit. While CSC algorithms were developed by ethical debate, this protocol guides their quantitative assessment. For CSC algorithms, this protocol addresses (1) adapting algorithms for empirical study, (2) quantifying predictive accuracy, and (3) simulating clinical decision-making. This protocol provides a framework for healthcare systems and governments to test the performance of CSC algorithms to ensure they meet their stated ethical goals. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Jezmir et al. (2021).

Public Preferences for Allocation Principles for Scarce Medical Resources in the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea: Comparisons With Ethicists' Recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate public preferences regarding allocation principles for scarce medical resources in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly in comparison with the recommendations of ethicists. METHODS: An online survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1509 adults residing in Korea, from November 2 to 5, 2020. The degree of agreement with resource allocation principles in the context of the medical resource constraints precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic was examined. The results were then compared with ethicists' recommendations. We also examined whether the perceived severity of COVID-19 explained differences in individual preferences, and by doing so, whether perceived severity helps explain discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists' recommendations. RESULTS: Overall, the public of Korea agreed strongly with the principles of "save the most lives," "Koreans first," and "sickest first," but less with "random selection," in contrast to the recommendations of ethicists. "Save the most lives" was given the highest priority by both the public and ethicists. Higher perceived severity of the pandemic was associated with a greater likelihood of agreeing with allocation principles based on utilitarianism, as well as those promoting and rewarding social usefulness, in line with the opinions of expert ethicists. CONCLUSIONS: The general public of Korea preferred rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic predominantly based on utilitarianism, identity and prioritarianism, rather than egalitarianism. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists' recommendations.

Medical Ethics, Moral Courage, and the Embrace of Fallibility.

Experts have an obligation to make difficult decisions rather than offloading these decisions onto others who may be less well equipped to make them. This commentary considers this obligation through the lens of drafting critical care rationing protocols to address COVID-19-induced scarcity. The author recalls her own experience as a member of multiple groups charged with the generation of protocols for how hospitals and states should ration critical care resources like ventilators and intensive care unit beds, in the event that there would not be enough to go around as the COVID-19 pandemic intensified. She identifies several obvious lessons learned through this process, including the need to combat the pervasive effects of racism, ableism, and other forms of discrimination; to enhance the diversity, equity, and inclusion built into the process of drafting rationing protocols; and to embrace transparency, including acknowledging failings and fallibility. She also comes to a more complicated conclusion: Individuals in a position of authority, such as medical ethicists, have a moral obligation to embrace assertion, even when such assertions may well turn out to be wrong. She notes that when the decision-making process is grounded in legitimacy, medical ethics must have the moral courage to embrace fallibility.

Justice through a Wide-Angle Lens.

In the lead article of the May-June 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report, Nancy Jecker and Caesar Atuire argue that the Covid-19 crisis is best understood as a syndemic, "a convergence of biosocial forces that interact with one another to produce and exacerbate clinical disease and prognosis." A syndemic framework, the authors advise, will enable bioethicists to recognize the ethical principles that should guide efforts to reduce the unequal effects that Covid-19 has on populations. Drawing on sub-Saharan African conceptions of solidarity, the authors lay out an approach to global vaccine distribution that prioritizes low- and middle-income countries. Like Jecker and Atuire's article, an essay by philosopher Keisha Ray pushes bioethicists to recognize broader justice-oriented responsibilities with the aid of a wide-angle lens. Ray's essay focuses on contemporary examples of environmental injustices that sicken, disable, or kill Black people.

What Has Covid-19 Exposed in Bioethics? Four Myths.

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed four myths in bioethics. First, the flood of bioethics publications on how to allocate scarce resources in crisis conditions has assumed authorities would declare the onset of crisis standards of care, yet few have done so. This leaves guidelines in limbo and patients unprotected. Second, the pandemic's realities have exploded traditional boundaries between clinical, research, and public health ethics, requiring bioethics to face the interdigitation of learning, doing, and allocating. Third, without empirical research, the success or failure of ethics guidelines remains unknown, demonstrating that crafting ethics guidance is only the start. And fourth, the pandemic's glaring health inequities require new commitment to learn from communities facing extraordinary challenges. Without that new learning, bioethics methods cannot succeed. The pandemic is a wake-up call, and bioethics must rise to the challenge.