Attending to social vulnerability when rationing pandemic resources.

Pandemic plans are increasingly attending to groups experiencing health disparities and other social vulnerabilities. Although some pandemic guidance is silent on the issue, guidance that attends to socially vulnerable groups ranges widely, some procedural (often calling for public engagement), and some substantive. Public engagement objectives vary from merely educational to seeking reflective input into the ethical commitments that should guide pandemic planning and response. Some plans that concern rationing during a severe pandemic recommend ways to protect socially vulnerable groups without prioritizing access to scarce resources based on social vulnerability per se. The Minnesota Pandemic Ethics Project (MPEP), a public engagement project on rationing scarce health resources during a severe influenza pandemic, agrees and recommends an integrated set of ways to attend to the needs of socially vulnerable people and avoid exacerbation of health disparities during a severe influenza pandemic. Among other things, MPEP recommends: 1. Engaging socially vulnerable populations to clarify unique needs and effective strategies; 2. Engaging socially vulnerable populations to elicit ethical values and perspectives on rationing; 3. Rejecting rationing based on race, socioeconomic class, citizenship, quality of life, length of life-extension and first-come, first-served; 4. Prioritizing those in the general population for access to resources based on combinations of risk (of death or severe complications from influenza, exposure to influenza, transmitting influenza to vulnerable groups) and the likelihood of responding well to the resource in question. 5. Protecting critical infrastructures on which vulnerable populations and the general public rely; 6. Identifying and removing access barriers during pandemic planning and response; and 7. Collecting and promptly analyzing data during the pandemic to identify groups at disproportionate risk of influenza-related mortality and serious morbidity and to optimize the distribution of resources.

Ethical considerations in pandemic influenza planning.

Although the timing and severity of the next influenza pandemic is impossible to predict, there is broad agreement that one will occur. Preparation is vital to mitigating its effects. A severe influenza pandemic like that which began in 1918 would be unlike other disasters in nature, scale, and duration. It could cripple normal business operations and disrupt global distribution of essential goods and services. It could force ethical decisions that many in a country accustomed to relative abundance are poorly prepared to make. Although sound evidence and clinical and public health expertise are needed to make informed decisions, so is an understanding of our common and diverse values. This article outlines some of the challenges the state would face during a pandemic, especially concerning the rationing of resources and care. It also describes a process currently underway to develop guidelines for how the state should approach the ethical questions that would arise.

Allocating pandemic influenza vaccines in Minnesota: recommendations of the Pandemic Influenza Ethics Work Group.

A public-private, multidisciplinary work group developed recommendations for rationing vaccines in Minnesota during a worst-case influenza pandemic. The recommendations encompass an ethical framework of principles, goals, and strategies. The primary goal is to maximize Minnesotans' chances of surviving both the pandemic and the years immediately thereafter and to limit two major causes of death: (a) influenza and complications of influenza, and (b) disruption of basic health care, public health, and public safety infrastructures. The work group also developed a sample rationing plan, but stressed that any final plan must reflect the best available evidence during an actual pandemic.

The use of human fetal tissue: scientific, ethical, and policy concerns (January 1990)

The use of fetal tissue in transplants for treating illnesses such as Parkinson's disease and juvenile diabetes has raised the hopes of patients, their families, and the biomedical community. But, this practice has created considerable controversy. Concerns arise because tissue is usually obtained from electively aborted fetuses. Despite the controversy, there has been little systematic and sustained examination of the ethical and policy issues posed by the use of fetal tissue in biomedicine. The lack of information and analysis hampers serious discussion. In the Spring of 1988, the Center for Biomedical Ethics began an interdisciplinary research project on the scientific, ethical, and policy issues raised by the use of fetal tissue in biomedicine. Twenty-five scholars, drawn mainly, but not exclusively, from the faculty of the University of Minnesota, met to undertake the study. The members of this research group included experts in neonatology, pediatrics, neurology, neurosurgery, organ transplantation, tissue procurement, cell biology, immunology, epidemiology, law, philosophy, moral theology, and the behavioral sciences. The group met every three weeks over a period of ten months to collect and review information about the use of fetal tissue -- with special attention to transplantation -- the potential sources of fetal tissue, and the relevant laws and guidelines in the U.S. and other nations. Six members of the research group had primary responsibility for writing this report.