The uncertainty trope: the duty to treat during a pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Past guidance in the codes of practice urged doctors to provide treatment even in the context of extreme adversities. Despite the significant societal changes of recent times, contemporary guidance regarding the duty to treat during a pandemic has been limited. OBJECTIVE: The authors herewith examine deontological aspects pertaining to the duty to treat during a pandemic and the potential disruptions to health care services. CONCLUSION: The ethical, legal and professional guidance for duty of care during a pandemic is uncertain and demands further debate.

The Duty to Care is Not Dead Yet.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed social shortcomings and ethical failures, but it also revealed strengths and successes. In this perspective article, we examine and discuss one strength: the duty to care. We understand this duty in a broad sense, as more than a duty to treat individual patients who could infect health care workers. We understand it as a prima facie duty to work to provide care and promote health in the face of risks, obstacles, and inconveniences. Although at least one survey suggested that health care workers would not respond to a SARS-like outbreak according to a duty to care, we give reasons to show that the response was better than expected. The reasons we discuss lead us to consider normative accounts of the duty to care based on the adoption of social roles. Then, we consider one view of the relationship between empirical claims and normative claims about the duty to care in the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we draw insight from Mengzi, with an emendation from Dewey. Our perspective leaves many question to research, but one point seems clear: there will be future pandemics and the need for health care workers who respond.

Emergency physician risk of occupational mortality: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Occupational hazards for emergency physicians are widely known, but the risk of work-related mortality is not clear. The COVID-19 pandemic generated new concerns about the risk of occupational mortality, particularly in the setting of inadequate personal protective equipment. The perception of increased risk generated ethical concerns regarding emergency physicians' duty to treat and employers' duty to protect their employees. We performed this scoping review to define prepandemic emergency physician occupational mortality. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of peer-reviewed publications from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases in September 2020. RESULTS: Of the 747 unique articles identified in the 3 databases, 1 article met inclusion criteria and was included in the final analysis. CONCLUSION: The baseline risk of occupational mortality for emergency physicians is not established in the scientific literature. Further study is needed to quantify risk, as this information would be useful to shape policy and ethical considerations.

A Duty to treat? A Right to refrain? Bangladeshi physicians in moral dilemma during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Normally, physicians understand they have a duty to treat patients, and they perform accordingly consistent with codes of medical practice, standards of care, and inner moral motivation. In the case of COVID-19 pandemic in a developing country such as Bangladesh, however, the fact is that some physicians decline either to report for duty or to treat patients presenting with COVID-19 symptoms. At issue ethically is whether such medical practitioners are to be automatically disciplined for dereliction of duty and gross negligence; or, on the contrary, such physicians may legitimately claim a professional right of autonomous judgment, on the basis of which professional right they may justifiably decline to treat patients. METHODS: This ethical issue is examined with a view to providing some guidance and recommendations, insofar as the conditions of medical practice in an under-resourced country such as Bangladesh are vastly different from medical practice in an industrialized nation such as the USA. The concept of moral dilemma as discussed by philosopher Michael Shaw Perry and philosopher Immanuel Kant's views on moral appeal to "emergency" are considered pertinent to sorting through the moral conundrum of medical care during pandemic. RESULTS: Our analysis allows for conditional physician discretion in the decision to treat COVID-19 patients, i.e., in the absence of personal protective equipment (PPE) combined with claim of duty to family. Physicians are nonetheless expected to provide a minimum of initial clinical assessment and stabilization of a patient before initiating transfer of a patient to a "designated" COVID-19 hospital. The latter is to be done in coordination with the national center control room that can assure admission of a patient to a referral hospital prior to ambulance transport. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a moral dilemma (i.e., conflict of obligations) in the pandemic situation of clinical care requires institutional authorities to exercise tolerance of individual physician moral decision about the duty to care. Hospital or government authority should respond to such decisions without introducing immediate sanction, such as suspension from all clinical duties or termination of licensure, and instead arrange for alternative clinical duties consistent with routine medical care.

Ethical framework for head and neck cancer care impacted by COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended head and neck cancer care delivery in ways unforeseen and unprecedented. The impact of these changes parallels other fields in oncology, but is disproportionate due to protective measures and limitations on potentially aerosolizing procedures and related interventions specific to the upper aerodigestive tract. The moral and professional dimensions of providing ethically appropriate and consistent care for our patients in the COVID-19 crisis are considered herein for head and neck oncology providers.

A Qualitative Study of Paramedic Duty to Treat During Disaster Response.

OBJECTIVES: Disasters place unprecedented demands on emergency medical services and can test paramedics personal commitment as health care professionals. Despite this challenge, guidelines and codes of ethics are largely silent on the issue, providing little to no guidance on what is expected of paramedics or how they ought to approach their duty to treat in the face of risk. The objective of this research is to explore how paramedics view their duty to treat during disasters. METHODS: The authors employed qualitative methods to gather Australian paramedic perspectives. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that paramedic decisions around duty to treat will largely depend on individual perception of risk and competing obligations. A code of ethics for paramedics would be useful, but ultimately each paramedic will interpret these suggested guidelines based on individual values and the situational context. CONCLUSIONS: Coming to an understanding of the legal issues involved and the ethical-social expectations in advance of a disaster may assist paramedics to respond willingly and appropriately. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:191-196).

Acceptable Limitations on Paramedic Duty to Treat During Disaster: A Qualitative Exploration.

IntroductionThe Australian prehospital profession has not yet facilitated a comprehensive discussion regarding paramedic role and responsibility during disasters. Whether paramedics have a duty to treat under extreme conditions and what acceptable limitations may be placed on such a duty require urgent consideration. The purpose of this research is to encourage discussion within the paramedic profession and broader community on this important ethical and legal issue. METHODS: The authors employed qualitative methods to gather paramedic and community member perspectives in Victoria, Australia. RESULTS: These findings suggested that both paramedic and community member participants agree that acceptable limitations on paramedic duty to treat during disaster are required. These limitations should be based on consideration of the following factors: personal health circumstances (eg, pregnancy for female paramedics); pre-existing mental health conditions (eg, posttraumatic stress disorder/PTSD); competing personal obligations (eg, paramedics who are single parents); and unacceptable levels of personal risk (eg, risk of exposure and infection during a pandemic). CONCLUSION: It is only with the engagement of a more broadly representative segment of the prehospital profession and greater Australian community that appropriate guidance on limiting standards of care under extreme conditions can be developed and integrated within prehospital care in Australia. SmithE, BurkleFM Jr., GebbieK, FordD, BensimonC. Acceptable limitations on paramedic duty to treat during disaster: a qualitative exploration. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(5):466-470.

Survey of Nursing Students' Self-Reported Knowledge of Ebola Virus Disease, Willingness to Treat, and Perceptions of their Duty to Treat.

The purpose of this study was to explore nursing students' self-reported knowledge of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), willingness to treat patients with EVD, and student perceptions of duty to treat patients with EVD. The researchers developed the Survey of Nursing Student Self-Reported Knowledge of EVD, Willingness to Treat, and Perceptions of Duty to Treat, a quantitative tool with open-ended questions to inform the responses. On-line survey software was used for gathering anonymous data. A mixture of descriptive, nonparametric, and parametric statistics were used to describe, compare, and examine relationships between variables. Results demonstrated that licensed students scored significantly higher on self-reported knowledge of EVD than their prelicensure student counterparts (P=.039). Licensed students and prelicensure students did not differ on self-assessed willingness to treat (P>.05). The students had significantly higher willingness-to-treat scores when self-reported knowledge scores were higher (P=.007) and when they were older (P=.004). Willingness to treat was not influenced by whether one was partnered or single (P>.05) or had children or did not have children (P>.05). In conclusion, basic EVD knowledge and training appears to be critical to ensure willingness to treat. However, it is imperative that students have an indepth understanding of the principles of infectious diseases in general.

Translating Professional Obligations to Care for Patients With Ebola Virus Disease Into Practice in Nonepidemic Settings.

Determining how clinicians should meet their professional obligations to treat patients with Ebola virus disease in nonepidemic settings necessitates considering measures to minimize risks to clinicians, the context of care, and fairness. Minimizing risks includes providing appropriate equipment and training, implementing strategies for reducing exposure to infectious material, identifying a small number of centers to provide care, and determining which risky procedures should be used when they pose minimal likelihood of appreciable clinical benefit. Factors associated with the clinical environment, such as the local prevalence of the disease, the nature of the setting, and the availability of effective treatment, are also relevant to obligations to treat. Fairness demands that the best possible medical care be provided for health care professionals who become infected and that the rights and interests of relevant stakeholders be addressed through policy-making processes. Going forward it will be essential to learn from current approaches and to modify them based on data.

Balancing the Duty to Treat Patients with Ebola Virus Disease with the Risks to Dialysis Personnel.

In 2014, the author was invited to present at the American Society for Nephrology's annual conference in Philadelphia on the ethics of treating patients with Ebola virus disease. The argument was made that the status of health care workers, including nephrologists, was the dominant ethical standard that generated both the duty to treat and the conflicts between this commitment and other ethical commitments that arise in public health emergencies. Conflicts between duty to treat and personal safety, duty to community, and duty to colleagues were illustrated, and suggestions for designing ethics into medical practice were given. This article is a summary of that presentation.