A survey of Australian public opinion on using comorbidity to triage intensive care patients in a pandemic.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine which method to triage intensive care patients using chronic comorbidity in a pandemic was perceived to be the fairest by the general public. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the public perceived it fair to provide preferential intensive care triage to vulnerable or disadvantaged people, and frontline healthcare workers.MethodsA postal survey of 2000 registered voters randomly selected from the Australian Electoral Commission electoral roll was performed. The main outcome measures were respondents' fairness rating of four hypothetical intensive care triage methods that assess comorbidity (chronic medical conditions, long-term survival, function and frailty); and respondents' fairness rating of providing preferential triage to vulnerable or disadvantaged people, and frontline healthcare workers.ResultsThe proportion of respondents who considered it fair to triage based on chronic medical conditions, long-term survival, function and frailty, was 52.1, 56.1, 65.0 and 62.4%, respectively. The proportion of respondents who considered it unfair to triage based on these four comorbidities was 31.9, 30.9, 23.8 and 23.2%, respectively. More respondents considered it unfair to preferentially triage vulnerable or disadvantaged people, than fair (41.8% versus 21.2%). More respondents considered it fair to preferentially triage frontline healthcare workers, than unfair (44.2% versus 30.0%).ConclusionRespondents in this survey perceived all four hypothetical methods to triage intensive care patients based on comorbidity in a pandemic disaster to be fair. However, the sizable minority who consider this to be unfair indicates that these triage methods could encounter significant opposition if they were to be enacted in health policy.

Clinician perspectives on voluntary assisted dying and willingness to be involved: a multisite, cross-sectional survey during implementation in New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND: In the context of nationwide law reform, New South Wales (NSW) became the last state in Australia to legalise voluntary assisted dying (VAD) - commencing 28 November 2023. Clinicians have divergent views regarding VAD, with varying levels of understanding, support, and willingness to be involved, and these may have a significant impact on the successful implementation. AIMS: To understand levels of support, understanding and willingness to be involved in VAD among clinical staff across NSW during implementation of VAD. METHODS: A multisite, cross-sectional online survey of clinicians across four local health districts, assessing relevant demographics, awareness of and support for VAD legislation and willingness to be involved in different levels of VAD-related clinical activities. RESULTS: A total of 3010 clinical staff completed the survey. A majority of participants were aware of VAD legislation in NSW (86.35%) and supportive of it (76%), with nursing and allied health clinicians significantly more likely than medical specialists to express support. Among medical specialists, support was statistically more likely in those who did not care for patients at the end of life and those with limited knowledge of the legislation. Willingness of medical specialists to perform key roles was significantly lower, with 41.49% willing to act in coordinating or consulting roles, and only 23.21% as administering practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of clinical staff surveyed across NSW supported VAD legislation. While many eligible clinicians were reluctant to be actively involved, sufficient numbers appear willing to provide VAD services, indicating that successful implementation should be possible.

Conscientious Objection and Institutional Objection to Voluntary Assistance in Dying: An Ethico-legal Critique.

This column examines conscientious objection and institutional objection in Australian voluntary assistance in dying. It reviews the current legislative regimes and then examines these practices from an ethical perspective, and raises particular concerns and suggestions with how conscientious objection and institutional objection should be operationalised.

Raising the Dead? Limits of CPR and Harms of Defensive Practices.

We describe the case of an eighty-four-year-old man with disseminated lung cancer who had been receiving palliative care in the hospital and was found by nursing staff unresponsive, with clinically obvious signs of death, including rigor mortis. Because there was no documentation to the contrary, the nurses commenced cardiopulmonary resuscitation and called a code blue, resulting in resuscitative efforts that continued for around twenty minutes. In discussion with the hospital ethicist, senior nurses justified these actions, mainly citing disciplinary and medicolegal concerns. We argue that moral harms arise from CPR performed on a corpse and that legal concerns about failing to perform it are unfounded. We contend that such efforts are an unintended consequence of managerialist policies mandating do-not-resuscitate orders and advance care plans and of defensive practices that can value the interests of institutions and practitioners over those of patients. Health management teaching should include managerialism and its pitfalls, while clinician training should prioritize ethical reasoning and legal knowledge over defensive practice.

Death determination, organ donation and the importance of the Dead Donor Rule following withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment: a survey of community opinions.

BACKGROUND: Background: Organ donation (OD) following circulatory determination of death (DCDD) is an increasing source of transplant organs but little is known about community opinions on treatment withdrawal, determination of death and acceptance of OD in DCDD. AIMS: To determine attitudes on death determination in DCDD, the importance of patient choice in treatment withdrawal and OD agreement, and the importance of the 'Dead Donor Rule'. METHODS: Scenario-based online survey of 1017 members of the Australian general public. Mean levels of agreement across respondent's responses to statements were compared by repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: 54% (548) of respondents agreed that a DCDD scenario patient could be declared dead 2 minutes after circulatory standstill, however over 80% nonetheless agreed OD would be appropriate, including 77% (136/176) of those disagreeing with a 2-minute death declaration. 48% (484) supported OD even if it caused the patient's death. 75% (766) would accept relatively benign ante-mortem treatments administered to improve transplant outcomes. Over 70% supported a high quadriplegic patient's request to be allowed to die, with 61% (622) agreeing that he should be allowed to donate his organs under anaesthesia, but 60% (610) also agreed that he should first be declared dead. CONCLUSIONS: We found high levels of support for treatment withdrawal in severe brain injury and when requested by a quadriplegic patient. While there was variable agreement with the timing of death determination and with OD under anaesthesia, support for OD was high in both scenarios. For many people death determination prior to OD may not be of paramount importance.

A scoping review of the perceptions of death in the context of organ donation and transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Socio-cultural perceptions surrounding death have profoundly changed since the 1950s with development of modern intensive care and progress in solid organ transplantation. Despite broad support for organ transplantation, many fundamental concepts and practices including brain death, organ donation after circulatory death, and some antemortem interventions to prepare for transplantation continue to be challenged. Attitudes toward the ethical issues surrounding death and organ donation may influence support for and participation in organ donation but differences between and among diverse populations have not been studied. OBJECTIVES: In order to clarify attitudes toward brain death, organ donation after circulatory death and antemortem interventions in the context of organ donation, we conducted a scoping review of international English-language quantitative surveys in various populations. STUDY APPRAISAL: A search of literature up to October 2020 was performed, using multiple databases. After screening, 45 studies were found to meet pre-specified inclusion criteria. RESULTS: 32 studies examined attitudes to brain death, predominantly in healthcare professionals. In most, around 75% of respondents accepted brain death as equivalent to death of the person. Less common perspectives included equating death with irreversible coma and willingness to undertake organ donation even if it caused death. 14 studies examined attitudes to organ donation following circulatory death. Around half of respondents in most studies accepted that death could be confidently diagnosed after only 5 min of cardiorespiratory arrest. The predominant reason was lack of confidence in doctors or diagnostic procedures. Only 6 studies examined attitudes towards antemortem interventions in prospective organ donors. Most respondents supported minimally invasive procedures and only where specific consent was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Our review suggests a considerable proportion of people, including healthcare professionals, have doubts about the medical and ethical validity of modern determinations of death. The prognosis of brain injury was a more common concern in the context of organ donation decision-making than certainty of death.

Death, dying and donation: community perceptions of brain death and their relationship to decisions regarding withdrawal of vital organ support and organ donation.

Despite brain death (BD) being established as a definition of death for over 50 years, the concept remains controversial. Little is known about public perception of death determination in decision-making about withdrawal of organ support and organ donation (OD), and the importance of the 'Dead Donor Rule' (DDR). We examined perceptions about death in a BD patient and their relationship to decisions about withdrawal of vital organ support, OD and the DDR, using an online survey of 1017 Australian adults. A BD patient scenario was presented, followed by a series of questions. Statistically significant differences in responses were determined using repeated measures analyses of variance and t tests. Seven hundred and fourteen respondents (70.2%) agreed that a hypothetical BD patient was dead. Those disagreeing most commonly cited the presence of heartbeat and breathing. Seven hundred and seventy (75.7%) favoured removal of 'life support', including 136 (13.3%) who had not agreed the patient was dead. Support for OD was high, but most favoured organ removal only after heartbeat and breathing had ceased. Where OD was in keeping with the patient's known wishes, 464 (45.6%) agreed that organs could be removed even if this caused death. Forty-one (20%) of those who had indicated they considered the patient was not dead agreed to organ removal even if it caused death. Australian public views on BD, withdrawal of 'life support' and OD are complex. Emphasis on prognosis and the impact of significant brain injury may be more appropriate in these situations, rather than focussing on death determination and upholding the DDR.

An Ethics Framework for Making Resource Allocation Decisions Within Clinical Care: Responding to COVID-19.

On March, 24, 2020, 818 cases of COVID-19 had been reported in New South Wales, Australia, and new cases were increasing at an exponential rate. In anticipation of resource constraints arising in clinical settings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a working party of ten ethicists (seven clinicians and three full-time academics) was convened at the University of Sydney to draft an ethics framework to support resource allocation decisions. The framework guides decision-makers using a question-and-answer format, in language that avoids philosophical and medical technicality. The working party met five times over the following week and then submitted a draft Framework for consideration by two groups of intensivists and one group of academic ethicists. It was also presented to a panel on a national current affairs programme. The Framework was then revised on the basis of feedback from these sources and made publicly available online on April 3, ten days after the initial meeting. The framework is published here in full to stimulate ongoing discussion about rapid development of user-friendly clinical ethics resources in ongoing and future pandemics.

ANZICS guiding principles for complex decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The global 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to major challenges in clinical decision making when the demand for intensive care exceeds local capacity. In order to promote consistent, transparent, objective and ethical decision making, the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) formed a committee to urgently develop guidelines outlining key principles that should be utilised during the pandemic. This guidance is intended to support the practice of intensive care specialists during the COVID-19 pandemic and to promote the development of local admission policies that should be endorsed by health care organisations and relevant local authorities.

Brain Death and Pregnancy: On the Legalities of Post-mortem Gestation.

This column examines a 2020 decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Millard v Australian Capital Territory [2020] ACTSC 138, which dealt with a dispute concerning a brain dead pregnant woman and whether treatment to sustain her body should have been continued to save the life of her fetus. The column compares the case to other cases from overseas jurisdictions to examine the question of whether there is any jurisdiction which would authorise the continuation of care in such circumstances.

The greying intensivist: ageing and medical practice - everyone's problem.

The medical profession is ageing in parallel with the wider community, with more Australian doctors working into their 70s. This has implications for workforce planning and raises questions about competence. However, no Australian specialist college has policies relating to the special circumstances of ageing practitioners. Ageing practitioners are affected by a number of age-related sensory and neurocognitive changes, including a decline in processing speed, reduced problem-solving ability and fluid intelligence, impaired hearing and sight, and reduced manual dexterity. A policy of mandatory retirement is not consistent with the wide individual variations in cognitive ageing. However, there may be an age ceiling, which varies by medical specialty and individual. Studies show the older doctors in several specialties perform worse than their younger colleagues. Older doctors, many of whom are found to be cognitively impaired, are more likely to be reported to the authorities for poor performance. The wisdom and experience of older doctors is of great value. However, work adaptations may need to be considered. For intensivists, these could include part-time work towards retirement, reduced after-hours call and shift work, and reduced exposure to acute crisis intervention, with an increased focus on mentoring, teaching, administration and research.