Ethical Issues in Scarce Resource Allocation during COVID-19 Pandemic
Addressing the ethical challenges of allocating limited life-saving resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, including scarce human and material resources. Explore ethical principles, triage options, and considerations for fair allocation.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Ethical Issues in Scarce Resource Allocation in COVID-19 Pandemic Kenneth Prager, MD Professor of Medicine at Columbia University Medical center Director, Clinical Ethics Chair, Medical Ethics Committee
How can the most lives be saved? The greatest ethical challenge in the current pandemic is how to ethically allocate scarce life-saving resources to save the most lives when demand outpaces supply.
What are the scarce resources? Human resources: physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, etc Material resources ICU beds Ventilators Dialysis machines and dialysate Medications Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) COVID testing material
Options First come, first serve, OR Triage: favor those most likely to survive over those less likely, regardless of their places in the line Utilitarianism: do the most good for the greatest number How good are we at prognostication? How can we avoid discrimination?
Ethical principles involved in triage Patient autonomy: respecting patient s wishes regarding access to life sustaining treatment Request to receive life support even with poor prognosis Beneficence: do the most good possible for our patients Is the physician s obligation to do what is best for his/her patient ever trumped by acting for the greater good of society?
Triage: ethical principles Non-maleficence: first do no harm Withholding or withdrawing life support against patient or family wishes is a major violation of this principle Justice: fair allocation of scarce resources Any triage policy must be vetted carefully to be fair to all patients regardless of race, ethnicity, income, immigration and insurance status We have been triaging patients for receipt of organs for transplant for decades with societal acceptance
Triage policies: Basic features Approximately 60 such policies across the country Triage committee: decides who shall receive life support or have it withdrawn, based on a scoring system using objective medical data and +/- clinical judgment Exclusion criteria: certain criteria will exclude patients from receiving life support These severe medical conditions indicate remote likelihood of surviving to discharge even with life support Sequential Organ Failure Assessment SOFA score evaluation, calculated on admission and regularly thereafter; accuracy for Covid-19?
Triage policies: Basic features Based on SOFA score patients placed in 4 categories: Prognosis for survival too poor to justify ventilator Patient status too good to need ventilator Patient with favorable prognosis but in need of ventilator Sicker patients with less favorable prognosis who may benefit from ventilator
Triage policies: Basic features Exclusion criteria Unwitnessed cardiac arrest Irreversible hypotension Severe traumatic or hypoxic brain injury Any condition resulting in immediate or near immediate mortality even with aggressive therapy Trial of ICU treatment Assessed at regular intervals Patients improving continue on ventilator Patients not improving or deteriorating: ventilator withdrawn if needed for patient with favorable prognosis
Withholding or withdrawing ventilator Decision not made by treating physician Decision made by triage committee based on objective criteria applied fairly to all patients Withholding ventilator DNR/I--much easier emotionally for physicians and family than withdrawing Need for rapid GOC discussion with family and role of palliative care
Concerns with triage policy Disability community concerns re: discrimination Intellectual disability Dementia Severe physical disability Concerns that age may play inappropriate role in life support decisions Is there bias against people with poorly treated medical conditions because of poor access to health care who have worse prognosis for survival? Minority communities
How will public react to triage policies? Public trust is essential if the policy will be implemented Mistrust already exists in disability and minority communities Needs legitimacy from governor/legislature to carry this out Must not be perceived by public as being policy of certain hospitals only Physicians must be guaranteed legal protection if they carry out policy Must be transparent Must treat all people, ethnicities, immigrants, uninsured and insured alike.
Controversial triage questions Should patients requiring more intense care be disadvantaged? Should patients with poorer long term prognosis be disadvantaged? Should physicians, nurses, and other health care providers be favored in allocations? If so how? If not, how will this affect morale? How would this be perceived by the public?
Potential legal liability Major obstacle to implementing triage policy Existing federal and state statutes provide limited immunity to physicians and nurses in times of emergency But importantly, these laws do not clearly immunize decisions to withhold or withdraw ventilators, which might be seen as willful, reckless, or wanton conduct and thus beyond the scope of existing shields Moreover, only a small number of states extend immunity to criminal charges Potential legal liability for withdrawing or withholding ventilators during COVID-19; Cohen, Crespo, White; Journal of the American Medical Association, April 1, 2020
Potential legal liability Clinicians making triage decisions do so at the judgment of future juries. A clinician who intentionally withdraws a ventilator from a nonconsenting patient could conceivably be charged with criminal homicide. If the clinician knows that removing the ventilator will result in the death of the patient , the applicable charge would be murder. Cohen, et. al.; op.cit.
The need for urgent action by State Governments With potentially thousands of triage decisions on the horizon, clinicians should not be expected to move ahead with implementing triage protocols based on the hope that prosecutorial discretion or sympathetic juries will protect them in the future. State legislatures must take action [to] immunize all health care clinicians and health care entities from civil and criminal liability for ventilator triage decisions made in good faith compliance with mandatory or voluntary state-approved protocols Cohen, et.al., op.cit.
Emergency Disaster Treatment Protection Act Passed by NYS legislature April 7, 2020 Grants qualified immunity to hospitals, nursing homes, administrators, board members, physicians, nurses from civil and criminal liability arising from decisions, acts, and omissions occurring from the beginning of the Governor s emergency declaration on March 7 through its expiration, and covers liability stemming from the care of individuals with and without COVID-19. The immunity will not apply to intentional criminal misconduct, gross negligence but makes clear that acts, omissions, and decisions resulting from a resource or staffing shortage will be covered.
Reaction of NYC hospitals to COVID crisis Instead of implementing triage policies, NYC hospitals have greatly expanded their ICU and ventilator capacities and the number of ICU physicians and nurses to accommodate vastly increased numbers of critically ill patients Operating rooms, cath labs, and other spaces have been converted into ICUs
Toll on health care providers Physicians, nurses and ancillary hospital personnel have performed heroically under the most stressful conditions Threat of becoming infected Threat of spreading infection to family members Need to physically separate themselves from family at times Enormous emotional toll of dealing with large numbers of dying patients who are separated from their families Recent suicide of Allen Pavilion ER doctor after recovery from COVID, with no history of mental illness
Moral distress of physicians and nurses Moral distress of having to continue life support for patients with no chance of survival whose families want everything done Risk of becoming infected while treating these patients Prolonging the dying process of such patients Using scarce resources of ventilators, dialysis machines, PPE while treating these patients Critical roll of palliative care physicians
The post COVID future Will the way medicine is practiced be changed? telemedicine Will our approach to medical futility/unbeneficial medical care be altered? Will the unethical situation of social determinants of medical inequality be addressed? What can be done to prevent our lack of preparedness in case of future pandemics?
