Ranking the relative importance of COVID-19 vaccination strategies in Canada: a priority-setting exercise.

BACKGROUND: When vaccine supplies are anticipated to be limited, necessitating the vaccination of certain groups earlier than others, the assessment of values and preferences of stakeholders is an important component of an ethically sound vaccine prioritization framework. The objective of this study was to conduct a priority-setting exercise to establish an expert stakeholder perspective on the relative importance of COVID-19 vaccination strategies in Canada. METHODS: The priority-setting exercise included a survey of stakeholders that was conducted from July 22 to Aug. 14, 2020. Stakeholders included clinical and public health expert groups, provincial and territorial committees and national Indigenous groups, patient and community advocacy representatives and experts, health professional associations and federal government departments. Survey results were analyzed to identify trends. RESULTS: Of 155 stakeholders contacted, 76 surveys were received for a participation rate of 49%. During a period of anticipated initial vaccine scarcity for all pandemic scenarios, stakeholders generally considered the most important vaccination strategy to be protecting those who are most vulnerable to severe illness and death from COVID-19. This was followed in importance by strategies to protect health care capacity, minimize transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and protect critical infrastructure. INTERPRETATION: This priority-setting exercise established that there is general alignment in the values and preferences across stakeholder groups: the most important vaccination strategy at the time of limited initial vaccine availability is to protect those who are most vulnerable. The findings of this priority-setting exercise provided a timely expert perspective to guide early public health planning for COVID-19 vaccines.

Prioritizing health care workers and first responders for access to the COVID19 vaccine is not unethical, but both fair and effective - an ethical analysis.

The Nordic countries have differed in their approach as to how much priority for COVID19 vaccine access should be given to health care workers. Two countries decided not to give health care workers highest priority, raising some controversy. The rationale was that those at highest risk of dying needed to come first. However, when it comes to protecting those at the highest risk of dying from COVID19, their needs and vulnerabilities need to be considered more broadly than just in terms of the individual protection that vaccination will afford them. Likewise, when considering whether to prioritize health care workers for the vaccine, their crucial role in keeping the health care system operational, and right to a safe work environment need to be factored in. Below we review several ethical arguments for why frontline health care workers and first responders should receive priority access to the COVID19 vaccine.

Sharing power in global health research: an ethical toolkit for designing priority-setting processes that meaningfully include communities.

To promote social justice and equity, global health research should meaningfully engage communities throughout projects: from setting agendas onwards. But communities, especially those that are considered disadvantaged or marginalised, rarely have a say in the priorities of the research projects that aim to help them. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance and resources on how to share power with communities in health research priority-setting. This paper presents an "ethical toolkit" for academic researchers and their community partners to use to design priority-setting processes that meaningfully include the communities impacted by their projects. An empirical reflective equilibrium approach was employed to develop the toolkit. Conceptual work articulated ethical considerations related to sharing power in g0l0o0bal health research priority-setting, developed guidance on how to address them, and created an initial version of the toolkit. Empirical work (51 in-depth interviews, 1 focus group, 2 case studies in India and the Philippines) conducted in 2018 and 2019 then tested those findings against information from global health research practice. The final ethical toolkit is a reflective project planning aid. It consists of 4 worksheets (Worksheet 1- Selecting Partners; Worksheet 2- Deciding to Partner; Worksheet 3- Deciding to Engage with the Wider Community; Worksheet 4- Designing Priority-setting) and a Companion Document detailing how to use them. Reflecting on and discussing the questions in Worksheets 1 to 4 before priority-setting will help deliver priority-setting processes that share power with communities and projects with research topics and questions that more accurately reflect their healthcare and system needs.

Triaging ethical issues in the coronavirus pandemic: how to prioritize bioethics research during public health emergencies.

Much of the ethical discourse concerning the coronavirus pandemic has focused on the allocation of scarce resources, be it potentially beneficial new treatments, ventilators, intensive care beds, or oxygen. Somewhat ironically, the more important ethical issues may lie elsewhere, just as the more important medical issues do not concern intensive care or treatment for COVID-19 patients, but rather the diversion towards these modes of care at the expense of non-Covid patients and treatment. In this article I explore how ethicists can and should prioritize which ethical issues to deal with, and develop a method of triage for identification and prioritization of ethical issues both in the next public health emergency and in bioethics more widely.

Queue questions: Ethics of COVID-19 vaccine prioritization.

The rapid development of vaccines against COVID-19 represents a huge achievement, and offers hope of ending the global pandemic. At least three COVID-19 vaccines have been approved or are about to be approved for distribution in many countries. However, with very limited initial availability, only a minority of the population will be able to receive vaccines this winter. Urgent decisions will have to be made about who should receive priority for access. Current policy in the UK appears to take the view that those who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 should get the vaccine first. While this is intuitively attractive, we argue that there are other possible values and criteria that need to be considered. These include both intrinsic and instrumental values. The former are numbers of lives saved, years of life saved, quality of the lives saved, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and possibly others including age. Instrumental values include protecting healthcare systems and other broader societal interests, which might require prioritizing key worker status and having dependants. The challenge from an ethical point of view is to strike the right balance among these values. It also depends on effectiveness of different vaccines on different population groups and on modelling around cost-effectiveness of different strategies. It is a mistake to simply assume that prioritizing the most vulnerable is the best strategy. Although that could end up being the best approach, whether it is or not requires careful ethical and empirical analysis.

COVID-19: A look from the perspective of bioethics / COVID-19: una mirada desde la perspectiva de la bioética

No disponible

Reflective disequilibrium: a critical evaluation of the complete lives framework for healthcare rationing.

One prominent view in recent literature on resource allocation is Persad, Emanuel and Wertheimer's complete lives framework for the rationing of lifesaving healthcare interventions (CLF). CLF states that we should prioritise the needs of individuals who have had less opportunity to experience the events that characterise a complete life. Persad et al argue that their system is the product of a successful process of reflective equilibrium-a philosophical methodology whereby theories, principles and considered judgements are balanced with each other and revised until we achieve an acceptable coherence between our various beliefs. Yet I argue that many of the principles and intuitions underpinning CLF conflict with each other, and that Persad et al have failed to achieve an acceptable coherence between them. I focus on three tensions in particular: the conflict between the youngest first principle and Persad et al's investment refinement; the conflict between current medical need and a concern for lifetime equality; and the tension between adopting an objective measure of complete lives and accommodating for differences in life narratives.

Mistrust and inconsistency during COVID-19: considerations for resource allocation guidelines that prioritise healthcare workers.

As the USA contends with another surge in COVID-19 cases, hospitals may soon need to answer the unresolved question of who lives and dies when ventilator demand exceeds supply. Although most triage policies in the USA have seemingly converged on the use of clinical need and benefit as primary criteria for prioritisation, significant differences exist between institutions in how to assign priority to patients with identical medical prognoses: the so-called 'tie-breaker' situations. In particular, one's status as a frontline healthcare worker (HCW) has been a proposed criterion for prioritisation in the event of a tie. This article outlines two major grounds for reconsidering HCW prioritisation. The first recognises trust as an indispensable element of clinical care and mistrust as a hindrance to any public health strategy against the virus, thus raising concerns about the outward appearance of favouritism. The second considers the ways in which proponents of HCW prioritisation deviate from the very 'ethics frameworks' that often preface triage policies and serve to guide resource allocation-a rhetorical strategy that may undermine the very ethical foundations on which triage policies stand. By appealing to trust and consistency, we re-examine existing arguments in favour of HCW prioritisation and provide a more tenable justification for adjudicating on tie-breaker events during crisis standards of care.

Contractualist age rationing under outbreak circumstances.

Age rationing is a central issue in the health care priority-setting literature, but it has become ever more salient in the light of the Covid-19 outbreak, where health authorities in several countries have given higher priority to younger over older patients. But how is age rationing different under outbreak circumstances than under normal circumstances, and what does this difference imply for ethical theories? This is the topic of this paper. The paper argues that outbreaks such as that of Covid-19 involve special circumstances that change how age should influence our prioritization decisions, and that while this shift in circumstances poses a problem for consequentialist views such as utilitarianism and age-weighted consequentialism, contractualism is better equipped to cope with it. The paper then offers a contractualist prudential account of age rationing under outbreak circumstances.

Impacto del COVID-19 en personas mayores en España: algunos resultados y reflexiones / No disponible

No disponible

Ethical health resources allocation: Why the distinction between 'rationing' and 'rationalization' matters / Asignación ética de los recursos de salud: por qué es importante la distinción entre 'racionamiento' y 'racionalización' / Alocação ética de recursos de saúde: Porque importa a distinção entre 'racionar' e 'racionalizar' / Assignació ètica dels recursos de salut: Per què és important la distinció entre 'racionament' I 'racionalització'

Allocation of health resources has an irreducible ethical dimension, thus cannot be decided only technically, but must be ethically weighed, what paradigmatic experiences of macro (Oregon Basic Health Services Act, 1989) and micro allocation (God's Committee, 1962) have shown. Justice is required in the enunciation of prioritization criteria, and transparency in its application. In situations of aggravated resource scarcity, it is common to take 'allocate' and 'rationing' as synonyms or claim that 'allocate' is always 'rationing'. Rejecting these positions, there is a distinction between 'allocating' (resource management) from 'rationing' (allocation of limited resources to a limited number of persons) and 'rationalizing' (optimization of available resources). These distinctions are ethically pertinent, showing how only 'rationalization' respects justice, transparency and human dignity

La asignación de recursos de salud tiene una dimensión ética irreducible, que no se puede solo decidirse técnicamente, sino que debe sopesarse éticamente, lo que han demostrado experiencias paradigmáticas de macro (Ley de Servicios Básicos de Salud de Oregon, 1989) y microasignación (Comité de Dios, 1962). Se requiere justicia, en la enunciación de los criterios de priorización, y transparencia, en su aplicación. En situaciones de grave escasez de recursos, es común tomar 'asignar' y 'racionar' como sinónimos, o afirmar que 'asignar' siempre es 'racionar'. Al rechazar estas posiciones, hay una distinción entre 'asignar' (gestión de recursos) del 'racionar' (asignación de recursos limitados a un número limitado de personas) y 'racionalizar' (optimización de los recursos disponibles). Estas distinciones son éticamente relevantes y muestran cómo solo la 'racionalización' respeta la justicia, la transparencia y la dignidad humana

A alocação de recursos em saúde tem uma dimensão ética irredutível, não podendo ser apenas tecnicamente decidida, mas devendo ser eticamente ponderada, o que experiências paradigmáticas de macro (Oregon Basic Health Services Act, 1989) e microalocação (God's Committee, 1962) evidenciaram. Exige-se justiça, na enunciação de critérios de priorização, e transparência, na sua aplicação. Em situações de escassez agravada de recursos é comum tomar 'alocar' e 'racionar' como sinónimos, ou afirmar que 'alocar' é sempre 'racionar'. Rejeitando estas posições, distingue-se 'alocar' (gestão de recursos) de 'racionar' (atribuição de recursos limitados a um número limitado de pessoas) e de 'racionalizar' (optimização dos recursos disponíveis). Estas distinções são eticamente pertinentes, evidenciando-se como só a 'racionalização' respeita a justiça, transparência e dignidade humana

L'assignació de recursos de salut te una dimensió ètica irreductible, que no es pot decidir només tècnicament, sinó que s'ha de sospesar èticament, el que han demostrat experiències paradigmàtiques de macro (Llei de Serveis Bàsics de Salut d'Oregon, 1989) I microassignació (Comitè de Déu, 1962). És requereix justícia, en l'enunciació dels criteris de priorització, I transparència, en la seva aplicació. En situacions de greu escassetat de recursos, és habitual interpretar 'assignar' I 'racionar' com a sinònims, o afirmar que 'assignar' sempre és 'racionar'. Quan es rebutja aquesta perspectiva, hi ha una distinció entre 'assignar' (gestió de recursos) envers 'racionar' (assignació de recursos limitats a un número limitat de persones) I 'racionalitzar' (optimització dels recursos disponibles). Aquestes distincions són èticament rellevants I mostren com únicament la 'racionalització' respecta la justícia, la transparència I la dignitat humana

La planificación de decisiones anticipadas como estrategia preventiva de conflictos éticos en urgencias y emergencias durante y después de la COVID-19 / Advance Care Planning as a preventive strategy for ethical conflicts in emergencies during and after COVID-19 / La Planificació de Decisions Anticipades com a estratègia preventiva de conflictes ètics a urgències I emergències durant I després de la COVID-19

La actual pandemia por la COVID-19 está ocasionado serias amenazas para la salud pública a nivel mundial, especialmente para los grupos de población más vulnerables. Los casos más graves de la enfermedad han sido primeramente atendidos por los profesionales de urgencias y emergencias, los cuales han tenido que tomar decisiones en contextos altamente complejos donde la priorización en la asignación de los recursos sanitarios disponibles les ha generado situaciones éticamente conflictivas. El objetivo del presente artículo es analizar la importancia de implantar la PDA en los servicios de urgencias y emergencias como herramienta de consulta en la resolución de los problemas éticos surgidos durante la pandemia por COVID-19, concretamente, en la atención al paciente crónico complejo o con enfermedad crónica avanzada

The events of the present CoVID-19 pandemic are causing serious threats to Public Health worldwide, specifically at the most vulnerable population groups. Emergency professionals have served as the first responders for the most serious cases of this disease. At the same time, they have made decisions in highly complex contexts where the prioritization of allocated care resources has generated ethically conflictive situations. The aim of this article is to analyze the importance of implementing the ACP as a tool in the emergency services to solve ethical problems that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the care of complex chronic patients or those with advanced chronic disease

L'actual pandèmia per la COVID-19 està ocasionat serioses amenaces a la salut pública a nivell mundial, especialment als grups de població més vulnerables. Els casos més greus de la malaltia han estat primerament atesos pels professionals d'urgències I emergències, els quals han hagut de prendre decisions en contextos altament complexos on la priorització en l'assignació dels recursos sanitaris disponibles els ha generat situacions èticament conflictives. L'objectiu d'aquest article va ser analitzar la importància d'implantar la PDA en els serveis d'urgències I emergències com a eina de consulta a la resolució dels problemes ètics sorgits durant la pandèmia per COVID-19, concretament, en l'atenció al pacient crònic complex o amb malaltia crònica avançada

[Current ethical challenges in intensive care in the face of the corona pandemic]. / Aktuelle ethische Herausforderungen in der Intensivmedizin angesichts der Corona-Pandemie.

In view of dramatically increasing patient numbers worldwide in the face of the corona pandemic and scarce resources in intensive care medicine in many countries, some of which are dramatically undersupplied, concerns and fears have spread among the population in Germany. Healthcare workers didn't know how to deal with an overload of the healthcare system. Numerous inquiries from concerned physicians as well as ethics committees prompted the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) together with seven other medical associations to work out a clinical-ethical recommendation on "Decisions on resource allocation in emergency and intensive care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic".

Unesco sobre el Covid-19: directrices éticas para una respuesta global / Unesco on covid-19: ethical guidelines for a global response

No disponible

Vulnerabilidad y atención sanitaria: Derecho y protocolos médicos / Vulnerability and health care. Law and medical protocols

El artículo aborda el análisis de los criterios de asignación de recursos sanitarios escasos durante la pandemia producida por el virus covid 19 en España. Se analiza críticamente la ausencia de una perspectiva jurídico-constitucional en la elaboración de tales criterios y se sugiere la incorporación del criterio de equidad como garantía del efectivo disfrute del derecho constitucional a la protección de la salud por parte de las personas vulnerables

The article deals with the analysis of the criteria for the allocation of scarce health resources during the pandemic produced by the covid 19 virus in Spain. It critically analyses the absence of a legal-constitutional perspective in the elaboration of such criteria and suggests the incorporation of the criterion of equity as a guarantee of the effective exercise of the constitutional right to health protection by vulnerable persons