This critical essay evaluates the potential integration of distinct kinds of expertise in policymaking, especially during situations of critical emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This article relies on two case studies: herd immunity and restricted access to ventilators for disabled people. These case studies are discussed as examples of experts’ recommendations that have not been widely accepted, though they were made within the boundaries of expert epistemic authority. While the fundamental contribution of biomedical experts in devising public health policies (...) during the COVID-19 pandemic is fully recognized, this paper intends to discuss potential issues and limitations that may arise when adopting a strict expert-based approach. By drawing attention to the interests of minorities, the paper also claims a broader notion of “relevant expertise.” This critical essay thus calls for the necessity of wider inclusiveness and representativeness in the process underlying public health policymaking. (shrink)

This paper proposes communities of practice (CoP) as a process to build moral resilience in healthcare settings. We introduce the starting point of moral distress that arises from ethical challenges when actions of the healthcare professional are constrained. We examine how situations such as the current COVID-19 pandemic can exponentially increase moral distress in healthcare professionals. Then, we explore how moral resilience can help cope with moral distress. We propose the term collective moral resilience to capture the shared capacity arising (...) from mutual engagement and dialogue in group settings, towards responding to individual moral distress and towards building an ethical practice environment. Finally, we look at CoPs in healthcare and explore how these group experiences can be used to build collective moral resilience. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 1-5.

In this article, I explain what makes a global bioethics “feminist” and why I think this development makes a better bioethics. Before defending this assertion explicitly, I engage in some preliminary work. First, I attempt to define global bioethics, showing why the so-called feminist sameness-difference debate [are men and women fundamentally the same or fundamentally different?] is of relevance to this attempt. I then discuss the difference between rights-based feminist approaches to global bioethics and care-based feminist approaches to global bioethics. (...) Next, I agree with a significant number of feminist bioethicists that care is a more fundamental moral value and practice than justice. Finally, I conclude that feminists’ insights about care, even more than rights, can bring us closer to achieving an inclusive, diverse, and fair feminist global bioethics. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 112-114.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 133-135.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 77-80.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 160-162.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 106-109.

BackgroundViral pandemics present a range of ethical challenges for policy makers, not the least among which are difficult decisions about how to allocate scarce healthcare resources. One important question is whether healthcare workers should receive priority access to a vaccine in the event that an effective vaccine becomes available. This question is especially relevant in the coronavirus pandemic with governments and health authorities currently facing questions of distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.Main textIn this article, we critically evaluate the most common ethical (...) arguments for granting healthcare workers priority access to a vaccine. We review the existing literature on this topic, and analyse both deontological and utilitarian arguments in favour of HCW prioritisation. For illustrative purposes, we focus in particular on the distribution of a COVID-19 vaccine. We also explore some practical complexities attendant on arguments in favour of HCW prioritisation.ConclusionsWe argue that there are deontological and utilitarian cases for prioritising HCWs. Indeed, the widely held view that we should prioritise HCWs represents an example of ethical convergence. Complexities arise, however, when considering who should be included in the category of HCW, and who else should receive priority in addition to HCWs. (shrink)

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has magnified pre-existing challenges in healthcare in Africa. Long-standing health inequities, embedded in the continent over centuries, have been laid bare and have raised complex ethical dilemmas. While there are very few clinical ethics committees (CECs) in Africa, the demand for such services exists and has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The views of African healthcare professionals or bioethicists on the role of CECs in Africa have not been explored or documented previously. In this study, we aim (...) to explore such perspectives, as well as the challenges preventing the establishment of CECs in Africa.MethodsTwenty healthcare professionals and bioethicists from Africa participated in this qualitative study that utilized in-depth semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. Themes were identified through thematic analysis of interviews and open-ended responses.ResultsKenya and South Africa are the only countries on the continent with formal established CECs. The following themes emerged from this qualitative study: (1) Lack of formal CECs and resolution of ethical dilemmas; (2) Role of CECs during COVID-19; (3) Ethical dilemmas presented to CECs pre-COVID-19; (4) Lack of awareness of CECs; (5) Lack of qualified bioethicists or clinical ethicists; (6) Limited resources to establish CECs; (7) Creating interest in CECs and networking.ConclusionsThis study illustrates the importance of clinical ethics education among African HCPs and bioethicists, more so now when COVID-19 has posed a host of clinical and ethical challenges to public and private healthcare systems. The challenges and barriers identified will inform the establishment of CECs or clinical ethics consultation services (CESs) in the region. The study results have triggered an idea for the creation of a network of African CECs. (shrink)

This article focuses on the experiences of social care workers during the first wave of the Covid pandemic. The method involved analyzing diaries kept by 65 professionals in 8 French regions during the first lockdown in France in the spring of 2020. As a form of non-binding, narrative expression, keeping diaries breaks with traditional models of reporting common in social care structures and allowed professionals to reflect on the experience as it was lived. In the diaries, professionals explored how the (...) crisis disrupted and challenged their personal and professional values but also allowed innovation in care practices for vulnerable populations that will continue beyond the pandemic period. Five care values were put to forefront by professionals: (1) spontaneity/flexibility; (2) respect for persons; (3) team reflexivity; (4) innovation; (5) solidarity. Mobilizing philosopher Paul Ricoeur’s ideas on recognition, Payet and Laforgue’s analysis of weak actors, as well as research on moral distress, we discuss how these values were tested during the crisis and what effect they had on professionals’ and users’ vulnerabilities. We will also elaborate the interest of keeping account of social care work through narrative methods. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 125-128.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 163-166.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 103-106.

Background: In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, healthcare workers increasingly encounter serious ethical issues that negatively affect their professionalism. Purpose: The study aims to examine the ethical sensitivity levels of physicians and nurses working in surgical units during the Covid-19 pandemic and the associating factors. Method: The sample of this cross-sectional online questionnaire–based study consists of 161 healthcare workers working at the surgical units in Turkish hospitals. The data were collected using the “Nurse Descriptive Information Form” developed by the (...) researchers and the “Ethical Sensitivity Questionnaire.” Ethical considerations: Approval was granted by the ethics committee. Verbal and written consent was received from the healthcare workers. Results: Ethical sensitivity in the dimension of conflict was found to be higher in healthcare workers who had ethical issues during the Covid-19 pandemic, who were married, who were nurses, who worked more than 45 h, and who had a work experience of 7–10 years (p < 0.05). Healthcare workers with a family member diagnosed with Covid-19 had high ethical sensitivity in the dimension of conflict (p = 0.008), while those who reported being fully competent and ready (p = 0.038) about Covid-19 were found to have low ethical sensitivity. Besides, those who experienced inadequate supplies (p = 0.045), long working hours (p = 0.038), and problems in asepsis–sterilization (p = 0.046) during the Covid-19 pandemic were found to have low sensitivity in the holistic approach dimension. Conclusion: The study revealed that ethical issues during the Covid-19 pandemic, sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge-skills about Covid-19, and the problems encountered in the work environment during the pandemic affect the ethical sensitivity of healthcare workers in the dimensions of conflict and holistic approach. Therefore, it is recommended that governments and all healthcare workers, and stakeholders in the health system in our country and other countries take action to promote ethical sensitivity in response to the rapidly increasing epidemic by considering the factors that adversely affect ethical sensitivity. (shrink)

Saving as many lives as possible while ensuring equity for vulnerable groups through access to triage resources has been the dominant position since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. However, the exact relationship between the principles of social justice and efficiency remains a controversial and unresolved issue. In this paper, we aim to systematically distinguish between different models of this relationship and show that conceptualizing social justice as a ‘moral side-constraint’ or adopting a ‘balancing approach’ that attempt to (...) reconcile social justice with efficiency inevitably lead to significant moral costs that require further justification. Based on this discussion, we propose a novel “threshold model” for trading-off moral costs. According to this model, the structural impact of triage must be considered in order to determine whether one opts for triage with the primary aim of efficiency or social justice. This contextualization further explains why, in some societies and circumstances, social justice can rightly be seen as the primary concern, while in other societies and circumstances, efficiency can be defended as the primary concern. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 92-94.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 139-141.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 202-204.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 190-192.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 199-201.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 204-207.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 193-195.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, global healthcare systems faced unprecedented challenges, with a lack of resources and suboptimal patient care emerging as primary concerns. Our research, using a comprehensive 24-item electronic questionnaire, “Reflections on the Provision of Healthcare during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” delved into the experiences of 938 physicians across the Czech Republic. Over fifty per cent observed a “lower standard of care” compared to pre-pandemic levels. A division arose among physicians regarding a decision’s medical, ethical, or legal basis, with a (...) notable gender disparity: male doctors leaned towards medical perspectives, whereas females accented the ethical perspective. Decision-making concerning health care limitations required agreement among the physicians on duty, interdisciplinary teams, or shift supervisors. Physicians reported varying degrees of patient or family participation in health care decisions. Variables such as age, pre-existing health conditions, and life expectancy influenced care decisions. Surprisingly, half of the physicians faced refusals of patients’ transportation to better-equipped facilities due to resource constraints. One-third of physicians never discuss the decision about care limitation and other options with patients or their families. As a result, almost fifty per cent of the physicians rarely or never imparted information about care limitations to patients. The survey shed light on the profound ethical dilemmas hospital physicians face across different types of healthcare facilities during the pandemic. It uncovered the need for open dialogue and scholarly debate on resource allocation and strengthening the role of patients and their families in care decisions in future healthcare crises. (shrink)

Building on the literature about the important differences between philosophical theory development and policymaking (Kamm 1990), I argue that the role and implications of counterexamples differ si...

Triage protocols can exclude older patients for the sake of effectiveness and this may be defended as the older have already had their fair share of life, which can mean fair amounts or complete lives. Nevertheless, if life is considered as a narrative, mentioning amounts might be nonsensical. Narratives have a quality of unity; so, life events are fragments whose meanings are dependent on the meaning of the whole. Thus, time units do not represent a reliable measure of the content (...) of life. In addition, people's experience is different from the external flow of time, making its significance relative. Moreover, to compare the completeness of lives qualitatively, it is necessary to have a common cultural understanding, which is improbable to agree on in a modern society. Therefore, basic assumptions of the accounts that refer to fair shares of lives are mistaken, and these accounts do not support age-based rationing. (shrink)

Bioethical dilemmas can emerge in research and clinical settings, from end-of-life decision-making to experimental therapies. The COVID-19 pandemic raised serious ethical challenges for healthcare organizations, highlighting the need to conduct needs assessments of the bioethics infrastructures of healthcare organizations. Clinical ethics committees (CECs) also create equitable policies, train staff on ethics issues, and play a consultative role in resolving the difficulty of complex individual cases. The main objective of this project was to conduct a needs assessment of the bioethics infrastructure (...) within a comprehensive hospital system. A cross-sectional anonymous online survey, including quantitative and qualitative formatted questions. The survey was sent to five key leaders from the organization’s hospitals. Survey questions focused on the composition, structure, function, and effectiveness of their facilities’ bioethics infrastructure and ethics-related training and resources. Positive findings included that most facilities have active CECs with multidisciplinary membership; CECs address critical issues and encourage team members to express clinical ethics concerns. Areas of concern included uncertainty about how CECs function and the process for resolving clinical ethics dilemmas. Most reported no formal orientation process for CEC members, and many said there was no ongoing ethics education process. The authors conclude that if CECs are a critical institutional resource where the practice of medicine and mission intersect, having well-functioning ethics committees with trained and oriented members demonstrates an essential commitment to the mission. The survey revealed that more needs to be done to bolster the bioethics infrastructure of this institution. (shrink)

This study examines the procedural ethical considerations surrounding religious exemptions to Covid vaccine mandates, specifically focusing on immigrant healthcare personnel (HCP) and HCPs of color. It emphasizes communication issues with applicants by investigating exemption applications and their accompanying guidelines. While there is extensive literature on the ethical implications of religious exemptions, a notable gap remains in addressing the procedural aspects of religious exemption applications and their reviewing processes. The study scrutinized religious exemption application forms and accompanying guidelines from 32 selected (...) non-teaching and teaching hospitals for the years 2022–2023. The findings highlight significant variability in exemption application criteria and processes across institutions. Importantly, many application forms lacked comprehensive procedural information, which may result in subjective evaluations and potential misinterpretations of non-Western and non-mainstream religious beliefs, especially those of immigrant HCPs and HCPs of color. The study proposes various strategies to advocate for more equitable and transparent procedures, underlining the significance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the religious exemption review process for vaccine mandates. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 207-209.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 145-147.

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 196-198.

This article aimed to explore issues of concern related to quarantine, its social consequences and influences, challenging its effects on human behavioral expressions during social isolation. The advent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted human lives in multifarious ways, threatening the meaning of normalcy. Quarantine, lockdown, isolation, and other terms reflecting conditions limiting human freedoms have become synonymous in importance to safety, security, and survival. To understand human defiance in the face of maintaining limited mobility during the COVID-19 (...) pandemic, reimagining situations of “unfreedoms” is explained as thinking of changes to inspire and improve the meaning of living lives meaningfully. During the pandemic, issues regarding healthcare practices and social behaviors focused much attention on interactive challenges that enhance ways to mitigate the spread of contagious diseases. Illuminating these issues, discussing concerns and highlighting recommendations to engage in alternative approaches and practices, heightens the declaration of efficiency of quarantine outcomes and effectiveness. Implications are proposed with the hope that they may lead the way forward in exercising contemporary healthcare practices. (shrink)

The Covid‐19 pandemic has brought about renewed conversation about equality and equity in the distribution of medical resources. Much of the recent conversation has focused on creating and implementing policies in times of crisis when resources are exhausted. Depending on how the pandemic develops, some communities may implement crisis measures, but many health care facilities are currently experiencing shortages of staff and materials even if the facilities have not implemented crisis standards. There is a need for shared conversation about equality (...) and equity in these times of contingency between conventional and crisis medicine. To respond well to these challenges, I recommend that institutions rely on policy, professional education, and ethics consultation. As is the case with crisis policies, creating contingency policies requires that health care professionals decide on how, specifically, to achieve equity. A policy is only as effective as its implementation; therefore, institutions should invest in context‐specific education on contingency policies. Finally, ethics consultation should be available for questions that contingency policies cannot address. (shrink)

BackgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic caused situations where, in some hospitals, there were more patients in need of urgent treatment in intensive care units (ICU) than were available. In particular, there were not sufficient ventilators or critical care resources for all patients in danger of dying from respiratory failure or other organ failures.DiscussionAs the “first come, first served” criterion was not considered adequate, more nuanced and fairer clinical criteria were proposed to assess whom to treat first. One type of patients that has (...) not been considered in the literature so far is that of “important patients”, individuals that many people might consider worthy of priority treatment for the contribution they made or might make to society as a whole.SummaryIn this article, we discuss the moral insights behind the possible treatment of “important patients” and suggest a supererogatory solution of voluntary renunciation/withdrawal. Details of the proposal are explained, and potential objections are addressed. (shrink)

Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 95-97.

BackgroundGeneral practitioners often act as gatekeeper, authorizing patients’ access to hospital care. This gatekeeping role became even more important during the current COVID-19 crisis as uncertainties regarding COVID-19 made estimating the desirability of hospital referrals (for outpatient or inpatient hospitalization) complex, both for COVID and non-COVID suspected patients. This study explored Dutch general practitioners’ experiences and ethical dilemmas faced in decision making about hospital referrals in times of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsSemi-structured interviews with Dutch general practitioners working in the Netherlands were (...) conducted. Participants were recruited via purposive sampling. Thematic analysis was conducted using content coding.ResultsFifteen interviews were conducted, identifying four themes: one overarching regarding (1) COVID-19 uncertainties, and three themes about experienced ethical dilemmas: (2) the patients’ self-determination vs. the general practitioners’ paternalism, (3) the general practitioners’ duty of care vs. the general practitioners’ autonomy rights, (4) the general practitioners’ duty of care vs. adequate care provision.ConclusionsLack of knowledge about COVID-19, risks to infect loved ones, scarcity of hospital beds and loneliness of patients during hospital admission were central in dilemmas experienced. When developing guidelines for future crises, this should be taken into account. (shrink)