Treating Workers as Essential Too: An Ethical Framework for Public Health Interventions to Prevent and Control COVID-19 Infections among Meat-processing Facility Workers and Their Communities in the United States.

Meat is a multi-billion-dollar industry that relies on people performing risky physical work inside meat-processing facilities over long shifts in close proximity. These workers are socially disempowered, and many are members of groups beset by historic and ongoing structural discrimination. The combination of working conditions and worker characteristics facilitate the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Workers have been expected to put their health and lives at risk during the pandemic because of government and industry pressures to keep this "essential industry" producing. Numerous interventions can significantly reduce the risks to workers and their communities; however, the industry's implementation has been sporadic and inconsistent. With a focus on the U.S. context, this paper offers an ethical framework for infection prevention and control recommendations grounded in public health values of health and safety, interdependence and solidarity, and health equity and justice, with particular attention to considerations of reciprocity, equitable burden sharing, harm reduction, and health promotion. Meat-processing workers are owed an approach that protects their health relative to the risks of harms to them, their families, and their communities. Sacrifices from businesses benefitting financially from essential industry status are ethically warranted and should acknowledge the risks assumed by workers in the context of existing structural inequities.

Structural Discrimination in Pandemic Policy: Essential Protections for Essential Workers.

An inordinate number of low wage workers in essential industries are Black, Hispanic, or Latino, immigrants or refugees - groups beset by centuries of discrimination and burdened with disproportionate but preventable harms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Engaging Disability Rights Law to Address the Distinct Harms at the Intersection of Race and Disability for People with Substance Use Disorder.

This article examines the unique disadvantages experienced by Black people and other people of color with substance use disorder in health care, and argues that an intersectional approach to enforcing disability rights laws offer an opportunity to ameliorate some of the harms of oppression to this population.

It is Not the Patient, It is the System: Commentary on "How Advanced Directives Help When Patients Refuse Life-saving Treatment Because of Their Substance Use".

Serious infections are common in patients with opioid use disorder who use injection drugs. Clinicians are often frustrated by the complexity and uncertainty involved in managing these patients, who also have a high rate of discharges against medical advice. The commentary addresses a proposal for a substance use advance directive that would bind the patient to involuntary future treatment, even over their contemporaneous objections. Although the problem is significant, this commentary challenges the legal and ethical justifications for the substance use advance directive and advances that instead, attention should focus on mitigating the harms of continued institutional and structural discrimination and advocating for evidence-based inpatient treatment.

Disability Discrimination Against People With Substance Use Disorders by Postacute Care Nursing Facilities: It is Time to Stop Tolerating Civil Rights Violations.

People with substance use disorders (PWSUDs), including opioid use disorder (OUD), continue to face widespread discrimination, including in health care. As hospitals increasingly provide more appropriate and integrated care for PWSUDs, nursing facilities that provide postacute care are receiving more referrals for patients whose diagnosis of substance use disorders is acknowledged rather than ignored. A concerning number of these facilities refuse to admit or treat PWSUD, especially those with OUD receiving opioid agonist therapy (OAT). This practice violates multiple federal antidiscrimination laws. Postacute care nursing facilities, such a skilled nursing or rehabilitation facilities, must end discriminatory practices against PWSUDs. Legal actors, from government enforcers to public interest lawyers, should utilize existing laws to communicate that noncompliance is no longer tolerated and that the civil rights of PWSUDs matter.

Invisible No More: The Impact of COVID-19 on Essential Food Production Workers.

From the farms to the packing plants, essential workers in critical food production industries keep food on our tables while risking their and their families' health and well-being to bring home a paycheck. They work in essential industries but are often invisible. The disparities illuminated by COVID-19 are not new. Instead, they are the result of years of inequities built into practices, policies, and systems that reinforce societal power structures. As a society, we are now at an antagonizing moment where we can change our collective trajectory to focus forward and promote equity and justice for workers in agriculture and food-related industries. To that end, we describe our experience and approach in addressing COVID-19 outbreaks in meat processing facilities, which included three pillars of action based on public health ethics and international human rights: (1) worksite prevention and control, (2) community-based prevention and control, and (3) treatment. Our approach can be translated to promote the health, safety, and well-being of the broader agricultural workforce.

Professional decision-making in medicine: Development of a new measure and preliminary evidence of validity.

INTRODUCTION: This study developed a new Professional Decision-Making in Medicine Measure that assesses the use of effective decision-making strategies: seek help, manage emotions, recognize consequences and rules, and test assumptions and motives. The aim was to develop a content valid measure and obtain initial evidence for construct validity so that the measure could be used in future research or educational assessment. METHODS: Clinical scenario-based items were developed based on a review of the literature and interviews with physicians. For each item, respondents are tasked with selecting two responses (out of six plausible options) that they would choose in that situation. Three of the six options reflect a decision-making strategy; these responses are scored as correct. Data were collected from a sample of 318 fourth-year medical students in the United States. They completed a 16-item version of the measure (Form A) and measures of social desirability, moral disengagement, and professionalism attitudes. Professionalism ratings from clerkships were also obtained. A sub-group (n = 63) completed a second 16-item measure (Form B) to pilot test the instrument, as two test forms are useful for pre-posttest designs. RESULTS: Scores on the new measure indicated that, on average, participants answered 75% of items correctly. Evidence for construct validity included the lack of correlation between scores on the measure and socially desirable responding, negative correlation with moral disengagement, and modest to low correlations with professionalism attitudes. A positive correlation was observed with a clerkship rating focused on professionalism in peer interactions. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate modest proficiency in the use of decision-making strategies among fourth-year medical students. Additional research using the Professional Decision-Making Measure should explore scores among physicians in various career stages, and the causes and correlates of scores. Educators could utilize the measure to assess courses that teach decision-making strategies.

Defining Misprescribing to Inform Prescription Opioid Policy.

Prescription opioid policies too often reflect over a century's worth of moralizing about the nature of opioid use disorder, the value of pain, and the meaning of suffering. The social and legal penalties to prescribers run in one direction-avoid overprescribing, however defined, at all costs. The lack of shared definitions is problematic for formulating and evaluating opioid policy. For example, the variant definitions of "misuse," "abuse," and "addiction" complicate estimates of morbidity. There are also no widely accepted definitions of misprescribing and overprescribing. I offer here a modest attempt at the categorization of misprescribing: inadvertent overprescribing, corrupt overprescribing, qualitative overprescribing, quantitative overprescribing, multiclass overprescribing, and underprescribing.

Introduction: Living with Pain in the Midst of the Opioid Crisis.

This symposium includes twelve personal narratives from individuals impacted by the current opioid crisis. Three commentaries on these narratives are also included, authored by four experts-three scholars in the field of bioethics and one nationally recognized science reporter and best-selling author. The goal of this symposium is to explore the personal impact of public discourse and recent policy about the opioid crisis on people living with chronic pain.

Exploring unnecessary invasive procedures in the United States: a retrospective mixed-methods analysis of cases from 2008-2016.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary invasive procedures risk harming patients physically, emotionally, and financially. Very little is known about the factors that provide the motive, means, and opportunity (MMO) for unnecessary procedures. METHODS: This project used a mixed-methods design that involved five key steps: (1) systematically searching the literature to identify cases of unnecessary procedures reported from 2008 to 2016; (2) identifying all medical board, court, and news records on relevant cases; (3) coding all relevant records using a structured codebook of case characteristics; (4) analyzing each case using a MMO framework to develop a causal theory of the case; and (5) identifying typologies of cases through a two-step cluster analysis using variables hypothesized to be causally related to unnecessary procedures. RESULTS: Seventy-nine cases met inclusion criteria. The mean number of documents or sources examined for each case was 36.4. Unnecessary procedures were performed for at least five years in most cases (53.2%); 56.3% of the cases involved 30 or more patients, and 37.5% involved 100 or more patients. In nearly all cases the physician was male (96.2%) and working in private practice (92.4%); 57.0% of the physicians had an accomplice, 48.1% were 50 years of age or older, and 40.5% trained outside the U.S. The most common motives were financial gain (92.4%) and suspected antisocial personality (48.1%), followed by poor problem-solving or clinical skills (11.4%) and ambition (3.8%). The most common environmental factors that provided opportunity for unnecessary procedures included a lack of oversight (40.5%) or oversight failures (39.2%), a corrupt moral climate (26.6%), vulnerable patients (20.3%), and financial conflicts of interest (13.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Unnecessary procedures usually appear motivated by financial gain and occur in settings that have oversight problems. Preventive efforts should focus on early detection by peers and institutions, and decisive action by medical boards and federal prosecutors.

BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE: CAN PHYSICIANS PRESCRIBE OPIOIDS TO TREAT PAIN ADEQUATELY WHILE AVOIDING LEGAL SANCTION?

Prescription opioids are an important tool for physicians in treating pain but also carry significant risks of harm when prescribed inappropriately or misused by patients or others. Recent increases in opioid-related morbidity and mortality has reignited scrutiny of prescribing practices by law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and state medical boards. At the same time, the predominant 4D model of misprescribers is outdated and insufficient; it groups physician misprescribers as dated, duped, disabled, or dishonest. The weaknesses and inaccuracies of the 4D model are explored, along with the serious consequences of its application. This Article calls for development of an evidence base in this area and suggests an alternate model of misprescribers, the 3C model, which more accurately characterizes misprescribers as careless, corrupt, or compromised by impairment.

Legal authority to preserve organs in cases of uncontrolled cardiac death: preserving family choice.

The gap between the number of organs available for transplant and the number of individuals who need transplanted organs continues to increase. At the same time, thousands of transplantable organs are needlessly overlooked every year for the single reason that they come from individuals who were declared dead according to cardio pulmonary criteria. Expanding the donor population to individuals who die uncontrolled cardiac deaths will reduce this disparity, but only if organ preservation efforts are utilized. Concern about potential legal liability for temporary preservation of organs pending a search for family members appears to be one of the impediments to wider use of donation in cases of uncontrolled cardiac death in states without statutes explicitly authorizing such action. However, we think that the risk of liability for organ preservation under these circumstances is de minimis, and that concerns about legal impediments to preservation should yield to the ethical imperative of undertaking it.