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.

The Future of Critical Care: Optimizing Technologies and a Learning Healthcare System to Potentiate a More Humanistic Approach to Critical Care.

While technological innovations are the invariable crux of speculation about the future of critical care, they cannot replace the clinician at the bedside. This article summarizes the work of the Society of Critical Care Medicine-appointed multiprofessional task for the Future of Critical Care. The Task Force notes that critical care practice will be transformed by novel technologies, integration of artificial intelligence decision support algorithms, and advances in seamless data operationalization across diverse healthcare systems and geographic regions and within federated datasets. Yet, new technologies will be relevant and meaningful only if they improve the very human endeavor of caring for someone who is critically ill.

Acknowledging the Burdens of 'Blackness'.

The novel coronavirus of 2019 exposed, in an undeniable way, the severity of racial inequities in America's healthcare system. As the urgency of the pandemic grew, administrators, clinicians, and ethicists became concerned with upholding the ethical principle of "most lives saved" by re-visiting crisis standards of care and triage protocols. Yet a colorblind, race-neutral approach to "most lives saved" is inherently inequitable because it reflects the normality and invisibility of 'whiteness' while simultaneously disregarding the burdens of 'Blackness'. As written, the crisis standards of care (CSC) adopted by States are racist policies because they contribute to a history that treats Black Americans are inherently less than. This paper will unpack the idealized fairness and equity pursued by CSC, while also considering the use of modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) as a measure of objective equality in the context of a healthcare system that is built on systemic racism and the potential dangers this can have on Black Americans with COVID-19.

Pediatric Ethics Consultation: Practical Considerations for the Clinical Ethics Consultant.

Clinical ethics consultants face a wide range of ethical dilemmas that require broad knowledge and skills. Although there is considerable overlap with the approach to adult consultation, ethics consultants must be aware of differences when they work with infant, pediatric, and adolescent cases. This article addresses unique considerations in the pediatric setting, reviews foundational theories on parental authority, suggests practical approaches to pediatric consultation, and outlines current available resources for clinical ethics consultants who wish to deepen their skills in this area.

A Fate Worse Than Death: Prognostication of Devastating Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the sources of uncertainty in prognosticating devastating brain injury, the role of the intensivist in prognostication, and ethical considerations in prognosticating devastating brain injury in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed literature review was performed. STUDY SELECTION: Articles relevant to prognosis in intracerebral hemorrhage, acute ischemic stroke, traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and postcardiac arrest anoxic encephalopathy were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Data regarding definition and prognosis of devastating brain injury were extracted. Themes related to how clinicians perform prognostication and their accuracy were reviewed and extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Although there are differences in pathophysiology and therefore prognosis in the various etiologies of devastating brain injury, some common themes emerge. Physicians tend to have fairly good prognostic accuracy, especially in severe cases with poor prognosis. Full supportive care is recommended for at least 72 hours from initial presentation to maximize the potential for recovery and minimize secondary injury. However, physician approaches to the timing of and recommendations for withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy have a significant impact on mortality from devastating brain injury. CONCLUSIONS: Intensivists should consider the modern literature describing prognosis for devastating brain injury and provide appropriate time for patient recovery and for discussions with the patient's surrogates. Surrogates wish to have a prognosis enumerated even when uncertainty exists. These discussions must be handled with care and include admission of uncertainty when it exists. Respect for patient autonomy remains paramount, although physicians are not required to provide inappropriate medical therapies.

Technical Considerations for Implementation of Tele-Ethics Consultation in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Robust ethics consultation services cannot be sustained by all hospitals; consultative service from a high-volume center via teleconferencing is an attractive alternative. This pilot study was conceived to explore the feasibility and understand the practical implications of offering such a service. METHODS: High-definition videoconferencing was used to provide real-time interaction between the rounding clinicians and a remote clinical ethicist. Data collection included: (1) evaluation of the hardware and software required for teleconferencing, and (2) comparison of ethics trigger counts between the remote and on-site ethicist during rounds. RESULTS: Issues with audio represented the majority of technical problems. Once technical difficulties were addressed, the on-site ethicist's count of "triggers" was not statistically different from the count of the remote ethicist. CONCLUSION: Remote clinical ethics rounding is feasible when the equipment is optimized. Remote ethicists can identify similar numbers of "triggers" for possible ethical issues when compared to on-site ethicist numbers.

Defining Futile and Potentially Inappropriate Interventions: A Policy Statement From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee.

OBJECTIVES: The Society of Critical Care Medicine and four other major critical care organizations have endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments. The multiorganization statement (entitled: An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM Policy Statement: Responding to Requests for Potentially Inappropriate Treatments in Intensive Care Units) provides examples of potentially inappropriate treatments; however, no clear definition is provided. This statement was developed to provide a clear definition of inappropriate interventions in the ICU environment. DESIGN: A subcommittee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee performed a systematic review of empirical research published in peer-reviewed journals as well as professional organization position statements to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committees and the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council were included in the statement. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICU interventions should generally be considered inappropriate when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient will improve sufficiently to survive outside the acute care setting, or when there is no reasonable expectation that the patient's neurologic function will improve sufficiently to allow the patient to perceive the benefits of treatment. This definition should not be considered exhaustive; there will be cases in which life-prolonging interventions may reasonably be considered inappropriate even when the patient would survive outside the acute care setting with sufficient cognitive ability to perceive the benefits of treatment. When patients or surrogate decision makers demand interventions that the clinician believes are potentially inappropriate, the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement should be followed. Clinicians should recognize the limits of prognostication when evaluating potential neurologic outcome and terminal cases. At times, it may be appropriate to provide time-limited ICU interventions to patients if doing so furthers the patient's reasonable goals of care. If the patient is experiencing pain or suffering, treatment to relieve pain and suffering is always appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The Society of Critical Care Medicine supports the seven-step process presented in the multiorganization statement. This statement provides added guidance to clinicians in the ICU environment.