An Ethical Anaylsis of the Arguments Both For and Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Since the development of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved vaccine for the prevention of serious disease and death associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, health care workers have been expected to comply with mandatory immunization requirements or face potential termination of employment and censure by their state medical boards. Although most accepted this mandate, there have been several who have felt this was an unnecessary intrusion and violation of their right to choose their own health care mitigation strategies, or an infringement on their autonomy and other civil liberties. Others have argued that being a health care professional places your duties above your own self-interests, so-called fiduciary duties. As a result of these duties, there is an expected obligation to do the best action to achieve the "most good" for society. A so-called "utilitarian argument." DISCUSSION: We explore arguments both for and against these mandatory vaccine requirements and conclude using duty- and consequence-based moral reasoning to weigh the merits of each. CONCLUSIONS: Although arguments for and against vaccine mandates are compelling, it is the opinion of the Ethics Committee of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine that vaccine mandates for health care workers are ethically just and appropriate, and the benefit to society far outweighs the minor inconvenience to an individual's personal liberties.

Sub-Dissociative Ketamine Use in the Emergency Department for Treatment of Suspected Acute Nephrolithiasis: The SKANS Study.

CONTEXT: Currently, there is no standard therapy for treatment of acute renal colic. With the increased scrutiny and controversy now surrounding opioids, the authors identified a need to investigate an alternative medication for pain control. As such, they sought to determine the efficacy of sub-dissociative (i.e., low) doses (0.3 mg/kg) of ketamine in providing Emergency Department (ED) patients acute pain management for renal colic secondary to nephrolithiasis. METHODS: After institutional review board (IRB) approval, the authors conducted a non-blinded, prospective clinical study. A convenience sample of n = 34 patients from the ED of a Western Michigan-based health system with suspected renal colic received one intravenous dose of ketorolac, 30 mg if over 50 kg body weight or 15 mg if under 50 kg In patients weighing greater than 50 kg, up to two doses of sub-dissociative ketamine were then given to further control pain. Pain was assessed at times 0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant pain reduction with administration of sub-dissociative ketamine, with 24 (69.2%) patients reporting an average reduction in pain score > 30% (t = 3.16, p = 0.004). Initial average pain scores for patients receiving sub-dissociative ketamine averaged 7.76 (SD = 2.55) on the 11-point verbal Pain Numeric Rating Scale. After a first dose of ketamine, patients' average pain score was 3.56 (SD = 0.74) at 30 minutes. After two hours, patients' average score was 2.56 (SD = 0.65), indicating that pain control was still effective over time with no statistically significant change in pain scores. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in pain reduction observed between genders (t = -0.192, p = 0.850). CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, sub-dissociative ketamine may be considered a reasonable and effective supplemental non-opiate treatment option for suspected renal colic in otherwise healthy 18-70-year-old patients and could provide an effective alternative to traditional therapies. Further studies utilizing this methodology with larger, more generalizable samples are needed to further validate these findings.