Ethical challenges in health care during collective hunger strikes in public or occupied spaces.

Public collective hunger strikes take place in complex social and political contexts, require medical attention and present ethical challenges to physicians. Empirical research, the ethical debate to date and existing guidelines by the World Medical Association focus almost exclusively on hunger strikes in detention. However, the public space differs substantially with regard to the conditions for the provision of health care and the diverse groups of healthcare providers or stakeholders involved. By reviewing empirical research on the experience of health professionals with public collective hunger strikes, we identified the following ethical challenges: (1) establishment of a trustful physician-striker relationship, (2) balancing of medico-ethical principles in medical decision-making, (3) handling of loyalty conflicts and (4) preservation of professional independence and the risk of political instrumentalization. Some of these challenges have already been described and discussed, yet not contextualized for public collective strikes, while others are novel. The presence of voluntary physicians may offer opportunities for a trustful relationship and, hence, for ethical treatment decisions. According to our findings, it requires more attention to how to realise autonomous medical decisions in the complex context of a dynamic, often unstructured and politically charged setting, which ethical norms should shape the professional role of voluntary physicians, and what is the influence of the hunger strikers' collective on individual healthcare decisions. Our article can serve as a starting point for further ethical discussion. It can also provide the basis for the development of potential guidelines to support health professionals involved in public collective hunger strikes.

Exploring the Ethics of a Nurses' Strike During a Pandemic.

ABSTRACT: It's usually considered a violation of professional ethics for health care workers, including nurses, to refuse to work during mass medical emergencies, especially if their refusal is over concerns like compensation. Strikes and other forms of work stoppage may result in harm to patients and, therefore, violate professional obligations of beneficence. However, in rare circumstances a health care worker's choice to remain on the job despite risk or potential harm to themselves or even their family may be considered beyond their professional obligation. During a pandemic such as COVID-19, the ethical calculus (that is, finding the right balance between beneficence and harm before deciding on a course of action) must take account of a confluence of factors, including the risks to present patients, future patients, and health care workers; the severity and duration of the risks; and the availability of ameliorative or protective steps that reduce risk and harm. The principle of beneficence to both future patients and health care workers may be thwarted if the risk analysis is confined only to short-term concerns (that is, to concerns occurring within a narrow temporal window). If a significantly elevated risk has been demonstrated to affect nurses and other health care workers of color disproportionately, racial justice must also be considered. The purpose of this article is to assess the moral framework of a work stoppage by nurses during a pandemic.

Ethical Dilemma: An Unprecedented Strike by Health care Workers in Early February 2020 in Hong Kong.

Urging the government to exercise a complete border closure to inhibit the spread of the novel coronavirus from Mainland China, about 8,000 health care workers participated in a 5-day strike in early February 2020 in Hong Kong. Despite gaining 61% support from the public, dissenters criticised that the participants violated professional ethics and abandoned their accountabilities, which led to moral distress. However, the participants were guided by the four fundamental medical principles (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice) for public interest and health equity. Their concerns for occupational safety should not be ignored to maintain an effective health care system. In short, the strike adopted a bottom-up initiative and adhered to a public-centered perspective and community-driven ethical behaviors, through which the participants deliberated over professionalism, humanism and the imminence of public health, and the balance between them. Strikers showed care and concern for the safety of the community, sustainability of the health care system, and well-being of all people in Hong Kong.

Doctor and healthcare workers strike: are they ethical or morally justifiable: another view.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review analyzed legal and ethical issues surrounding recent doctor and healthcare worker (HCW) strikes and considered whether HCW strikes are legally and morally justifiable, underlying causes, and impact of such strikes on healthcare service delivery. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent reports show that doctor and HCW strikes are an ongoing phenomenon globally, occurring in both developed and developing countries. The main reasons for HCW strikes are failed employer-employee negotiations regarding fair wages and working conditions, policy issues, infrastructural deficiencies in poorer countries, and concerns by HCWs regarding personal security in the workplace. The main impact of HCW strikes is disruption of healthcare service delivery, such as canceled outpatients' appointments, hospital admissions, and elective surgeries. There was no clear evidence of increased patients' mortality during strikes, except in isolated cases, where emergency services were also withdrawn during strikes. SUMMARY: Doctors and HCWs strikes are lawful deadlock-breaking mechanisms when collective bargaining negotiations have reached an impasse. Doctors' strikes appear to create an ethical conflict with the Hippocratic tradition and obligation to place patients' best interests as the primary moral consideration in medical practice. However, the rise of consumerism in healthcare, and loss of power by doctors, many of whom now work as employees, subject to regulations imposed by different stakeholders, including governments, health-maintenance organizations, and healthcare insurers, has impacted on modern medical practice. Therefore, doctors, like other employees may occasionally resort to strikes to extract concessions from employers. Mortality is rarely increased during HCW strikes, especially where emergency healthcare services are provided.

Improving work conditions through strike: Examination of nurses' attitudes through perceptions of two physician strikes in Israel.

BACKGROUND: Strikes are means to influence policies related to working conditions, yet raise ethical dilemmas for healthcare workers. Nurse strikes have become more prominent around the world. OBJECTIVE: To assess the change in Israeli nurses' attitudes towards strikes in light of two physician strikes that have preceded a nursing strike. METHODS: An anonymous survey was administered once in 2000 (N = 106) and again in 2011 (n = 175) following 110 days of a physician strike, to assess nurses' attitudes towards the strike and resulting ethical issues. RESULTS: A statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between administrations revealed that in 2011 more nurses identified striking as a legitimate mechanism, would strike under the same circumstances, and felt that collaboration with physicians persisted despite the strike. Additionally, an increasing number of nurses said that the suffering of patients due to the strike is somewhat or entirely justified, although they were faced with a difficult dilemma of loyalty to physician colleagues vs. PATIENTS: Nurses reported finding ways to mitigate the suffering of patients resulting from the strike. CONCLUSIONS: While patient-centered care remains nurses' first and foremost priority, findings indicate an increasing support of collective bargaining and strike to promote working conditions related to professional and public health agendas.

Protest of doctors: a basic human right or an ethical dilemma.

BACKGROUND: Peaceful protests and strikes are a basic human right as stated in the United Nations' universal declaration on human rights. But for doctors, their proximity to life and death and the social contract between a doctor and a patient are stated as the reasons why doctors are valued more than the ordinary beings. In Pakistan, strikes by doctors were carried out to protest against lack of service structure, security and low pay. This paper discusses the moral and ethical concerns pertaining to the strikes by medical doctors in the context of Pakistan. The author has carefully tried to balance the discussion about moral repercussions of strikes on patients versus the circumstances of doctors working in public sector hospitals of a developing country that may lead to strikes. DISCUSSION: Doctors are envisaged as highly respectable due to their direct link with human lives. Under Hippocrates oath, care of the patient is a contractual obligation for the doctors and is superior to all other responsibilities. From utilitarian perspective, doctors' strikes are justifiable only if there is evidence of long term benefits to the doctors, patients and an improvement in service delivery. Despite that, it is hard to justify such benefits against the risks to the patients. Harms that may incur to the patients include: prolongation of sufferings, irreversible damage to health, delay in treatment, death, loss of work and waste of financial resources.In a system of socialized medicine, government owing to greater control over resources and important managerial decisions should assume greater responsibility and do justice to all stakeholders including doctors as well as patients. If a doctor is underpaid, has limited options for career growth and is forced to work excessively, then not only quality of medical care and ability to act in the best interests of patients is adversely affected, it may also lead to brain drain. SUMMARY: There is no single best answer against or in favor of doctors' industrial action. The author calls for the debate and discussion to revitalize the understanding of the ethical predicaments of doctors' strikes with patient care as the priority.

Criteria for a just strike action by medical doctors.

In response to a strike action by some doctors at the Safdarjung Hospital, the Delhi Medical Council issued a statement, in December 2010, that it was "...of the view that under no circumstances doctors should resort to strike as the same puts patient care in serious jeopardy and such actions are also in violation of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002". Statements such as this are common responses of medical councils across the world whenever they are confronted with the increasingly difficult issue of striking doctors. Evidently, these statements are not effective in stopping doctors from repeatedly engaging in strike action. In India, the statement by the medical council was, for instance, followed by many strikes, amongst which was the well-publicised nationwide strike initiated by the Indian Medical Association in June 2012.

Should doctors strike?

Last year in June, British doctors went on strike for the first time since 1975. Amidst a global economic downturn and with many health systems struggling with reduced finances, around the world the issue of public health workers going on strike is a very real one. Almost all doctors will agree that we should always follow the law, but often the law is unclear or does not cover a particular case. Here we must appeal to ethical discussion. The General Medical Council, in its key guidance document for practising doctors, Good Medical Practice, claims that 'Good doctors make the care of their patients their first concern'. Is this true? And if so, how is this relevant to the issue of striking? One year on since the events, we carefully reflect and argue whether it was right for doctors to pursue strike action, and call for greater discussion of ethical issues such as the recent strikes, particularly among younger members of the profession.

Physicians' strikes and the competing bases of physicians' moral obligations.

Many authors have addressed the morality of physicians' strikes on the assumption that medical practice is morally different from other kinds of occupations. This article analyzes three prominent theoretical accounts that attempt to ground such special moral obligations for physicians--practice-based accounts, utilitarian accounts, and social contract accounts--and assesses their applicability to the problem of the morality of strikes. After critiquing these views, it offers a fourth view grounding special moral obligations in voluntary commitments, and explains why this is a preferable basis for understanding physicians' moral obligations in general and especially as pertaining to strikes.

Nurses, industrial action and ethics: considerations from the 2010 South African public-sector strike.

Several important ethical dilemmas emerge when nurses join a public-sector strike. Such industrial action is commonplace in South Africa and was most notably illustrated by a national wage negotiation in 2010. Media coverage of the proceedings suggested unethical behaviour on the part of nurses, and further exploration is merited. Laws, policies and provisional codes are meant to guide nurses' behaviour during industrial action, while ethical theories can be used to further illuminate the role of nurses in industrial action. There are, however, important aspects to consider before judging whether nurses act unethically when striking. Following Loewy's suggestion that the nature of the work, the proceeding commitment of the nurse to the patient, the prevailing situation when the strike is planned and the person(s) who stand(s) to benefit from the strike be considered, coupled with a consideration of the South African historical socio-political context, important aspects of the ethics of nurses' behaviour in industrial action transpire.

Global medicine: is it ethical or morally justifiable for doctors and other healthcare workers to go on strike?

BACKGROUND: Doctor and healthcare worker (HCW) strikes are a global phenomenon with the potential to negatively impact on the quality of healthcare services and the doctor-patient relationship. Strikes are a legitimate deadlock breaking mechanism employed when labour negotiations have reached an impasse during collective bargaining. Striking doctors usually have a moral dilemma between adherence to the Hippocratic tenets of the medical profession and fiduciary obligation to patients. In such circumstances the ethical principles of respect for autonomy, justice and beneficence all come into conflict, whereby doctors struggle with their role as ordinary employees who are rightfully entitled to a just wage for just work versus their moral obligations to patients and society. DISCUSSION: It has been argued that to deny any group of workers, including "essential workers" the right to strike is akin to enslavement which is ethically and morally indefensible. While HCW strikes occur globally, the impact appears more severe in developing countries challenged by poorer socio-economic circumstances, embedded infrastructural deficiencies, and lack of viable alternative means of obtaining healthcare. These communities appear to satisfy the criteria for vulnerability and may be deserving of special ethical consideration when doctor and HCW strikes are contemplated. SUMMARY: The right to strike is considered a fundamental right whose derogation would be inimical to the proper functioning of employer/employee collective bargaining in democratic societies. Motivations for HCW strikes include the natural pressure to fulfil human needs and the paradigm shift in modern medical practice, from self-employment and benevolent paternalism, to managed healthcare and consumer rights. Minimizing the incidence and impact of HCW strikes will require an ethical approach from all stakeholders, and recognition that all parties have an equal moral obligation to serve the best interests of society. Employers should implement legitimate collective bargaining agreements in a timely manner and high-handed actions such as mass-firing of striking HCWs, or unjustifiable disciplinary action by regulators should be avoided. Minimum service level agreements should be implemented to mitigate the impact of HCW strikes on indigent populations. Striking employees including HCWs should also desist from making unrealistic wage demands which could bankrupt governments/employers or hamper provision of other equally important social services to the general population.

[Physicians' strikes--ethical considerations].

Strikes in general represent a solution based on a form of coercion. Historically, the striker caused direct damage to his employer, who was responsible for the perceived unfair treatment of the employee. In the case of strikes in the public sector, the employer is generally not harmed, but innocent citizens suffer in order to pressure the government agencies, a questionable practice from an ethical viewpoint. Physicians' strikes have more serious ethical problems. They cause suffering and death to innocent citizens. They violate the ethical codes to which physicians have committed themselves as professionals, and they seriously impair the trust of the public in physicians. Better and more ethical ways to provide fair compensation for physicians must be employed, perhaps like those used for judges and members of the IDF.