The duty to treat in the context of an influenza pandemic

Moral Distress and Moral Injury in Nephrology During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Summary: Across the world, challenges for clinicians providing health care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are highly prevalent and have been widely reported. Perspectives of provider groups have conveyed wide-ranging experiences of adversity, distress, and resilience. In understanding and responding to the emotional and psychological implications of the pandemic for renal clinicians, it is vital to recognize that many experiences also have been ethically challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted rapid and extensive transformation of health care systems and widely impacted care provision, heightening the risk of barriers to fulfillment of ethical duties. Given this, it is likely that some clinicians also have experienced moral distress, which can occur if an individual is unable to act in accordance with their moral judgment owing to external barriers. This review presents a global perspective of potential experiences of moral distress in kidney care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using nephrology cases, we discuss why moral distress may be experienced by health professionals when withholding or withdrawing potentially beneficial treatments owing to resource constraints, when providing care that is inconsistent with local prepandemic best practice standards, and when managing dual professional and personal roles with conflicting responsibilities. We argue that in addition to responsive and appropriate health system supports, resources, and education, it is imperative for health care providers to recognize and prevent moral distress to foster the psychological well-being and moral resilience of clinicians during extended periods of crisis within health systems.

Should neurosurgeons continue to work in the absence of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 era?

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a widespread shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). Many healthcare workers, including neurosurgeons, have expressed concern about how to safely and adequately perform their medical responsibilities in these challenging circumstances. One of these concerns revolves around the pressing question: should providers continue to work in the absence of adequate PPE? Although the first peak of the COVID-19 crisis seems to have subsided and supply of PPE has increased, concerns about insufficient PPE availability remain. Inconsistent supply, limited efficacy, and continued high demand for PPE, combined with the continued threat of a second COVID-19 wave, mean that the issues surrounding PPE availability remain unresolved, including a duty to work. This paper offers an ethical investigation of whether neurosurgeons should perform their professional responsibilities with limited availability of PPE. We evaluate ethical considerations and conflicting duties and thereby hope to facilitate providers in making a well-considered personal and moral decision about this challenging issue.

Local Preparedness for Infectious Disease Outbreaks: A Qualitative Exploration of Willingness and Ability to Respond

As ecologic, social, and economic conditions continue to facilitate the emergence and transmission of infectious diseases, local health department workers' willingness to respond will remain vital to the United States' ability to recognize and respond to new and emerging disease threats. As demonstrated by heavy occupational morbidity and mortality associated with the 2014 Ebola outbreak, infectious disease response can pose serious risks to the health workforce and presents many ethical and logistical challenges. To explore willingness to respond to an infectious disease outbreak among local health departments-the hub of the public health emergency preparedness system-we conducted focus groups with 46 local health department staff attending 2 national conferences. We examined perspectives from our participants on how local health department employees learn about and articulate their professional commitment to the department, the ways in which local health department leaders support local health department employees in responding to an outbreak, and how local health department staff articulate their responsibilities to their families. We conclude with a proposal for how a web of ethical commitments likely influences willingness to respond. These commitments and their relationship to willingness to respond should be explored further.

Duty to provide care to Ebola patients: the perspectives of Guinean lay people and healthcare providers

AIM

To examine the views of Guinean lay people and healthcare providers (HCPs) regarding the acceptability of HCPs' refusal to provide care to Ebola patients.

METHOD

From October to December 2015, lay people (n=252) and HCPs (n=220) in Conakry, Guinea, were presented with 54 sample case scenarios depicting a HCP who refuses to provide care to Ebola patients and were instructed to rate the extent to which this HCP's decision is morally acceptable. The scenarios were composed by systematically varying the levels of four factors: (1) the risk of getting infected, (2) the HCP's working conditions, (3) the HCP's family responsibilities and (4) the HCP's professional status.

RESULTS

Five clusters were identified: (1) 18% of the participants expressed the view that HCPs have an unlimited obligation to provide care to Ebola patients; (2) 38% held that HCPs' duty to care is a function of HCPs' working conditions; (3) 9% based their judgments on a combination of risk level, family responsibilities and working conditions; (4) 23% considered that HCPs do not have an obligation to provide care and (5) 12% did not take a position.

CONCLUSION

Only a small minority of Guinean lay people and HCPs consider that HCPs' refusal to provide care to Ebola patients is always unacceptable. The most commonly endorsed position is that HCPs' duty to provide care to Ebola patients is linked to society's reciprocal duty to provide them with the working conditions needed to fulfil their professional duty.

Am I My Family's Keeper? Disclosure Dilemmas in Next-Generation Sequencing

Ever since genetic testing is possible for specific mutations, ethical debate has sparked on the question of whether professionals have a duty to warn not only patients but also their relatives that might be at risk for hereditary diseases. As next-generation sequencing (NGS) swiftly finds its way into clinical practice, the question who is responsible for conveying unsolicited findings to family members becomes increasingly urgent. Traditionally, there is a strong emphasis on the duties of the professional in this debate. But what is the role of the patient and her family? In this article, we discuss the question of whose duty it is to convey relevant genetic risk information concerning hereditary diseases that can be cured or prevented to the relatives of patients undergoing NGS. We argue in favor of a shared responsibility for professionals and patients and present a strategy that reconciles these roles: a moral accountability nudge. Incorporated into informed consent and counseling services such as letters and online tools, this nudge aims to create awareness on specific patient responsibilities. Commitment of all parties is needed to ensure adequate dissemination of results in the NGS era.

Can Healthcare Workers Reasonably Question the Duty to Care Whilst Healthcare Institutions Take a Reactive (Rather than Proactive) Approach to Infectious Disease Risks?

Healthcare workers (HCWs) carry a substantial risk of harm from infectious disease, particularly, but not exclusively, during outbreaks. More can be done by healthcare institutions to identify risks, quantify the current burden of preventable infectious disease amongst HCWs and identify opportunities for prevention. We suggest that institutional obligations should be clarified with respect to the mitigation of infectious disease risks to staff, and question the duty of HCWs to care while healthcare institutions persist with a reactive rather than proactive attitude to infectious disease threats.

How Can We Balance Ethics and Law When Treating Smokers?

A physician is a valued member of society on whom many individuals rely for both professional advice and support during times when they may feel to be at a disadvantage, whether it be physically or mentally. An issue on the rise today concerns the population of smokers in our society. Many are coming to share the opinion that physicians should not provide treatments for smokers. Some of the opinions are based on the claim that smokers are morally responsible for their medical conditions. But, providing care in a fair manner includes not treating differently those who suffer from addiction. Moreover, it is important to recognize that allocating medical resources based on moral responsibility will undermine the physician-patient relationship which is necessary for the practice of medicine. Many countries have codes and policies that physicians must legally follow in terms of providing treatments. With acceptance of the fact that the patient may be unable to execute the decisions made by the physician, it is the legal duty of the physician to provide care and not abandon the patient. An analysis of the many policies around the world brings forward certain changes that must be made in order to make sure that physicians fulfil their legal duty, which is to provide care. As such, this article looks into the existing ethical dilemma in treating smokers around the world, with a review of some policies that will guide our approach in this matter.

Willingness of the local health department workforce to respond to infectious disease events: empirical, ethical, and legal considerations

According to the Institute of Medicine, the local health department workforce is at the hub of the public health emergency preparedness system. A growing body of research has pointed to troubling attitudinal gaps among local health department workers, a vital response cohort, regarding willingness to respond to emergent infectious disease threats, ranging from naturally occurring pandemics to bioterrorism events. A summary of relevant literature on the empirical evidence, ethical norms, and legal standards applicable to the willingness of public health professionals to respond to an infectious disease emergency is presented. Recommendations are proposed for future work to be done to bring the relevant empirical, ethical, and legal considerations together to develop practical guidance for the local response to infectious disease emergencies.

The duty to care in an influenza pandemic: a qualitative study of Canadian public perspectives

Ever since the emergence of SARS, when we were reminded that the nature of health care practitioners' duty to care is greatly contested, it has remained a polarizing issue. Discussions on the nature and limits of health care practitioners' duty to care during disasters and public health emergencies abounds the literature, ripe with arguments seeking to ground its foundations. However, to date there has been little public engagement on this issue. This study involved three Townhall meetings held between February 2008 and May 2010 in three urban settings in Canada in order to probe lay citizens' views about ethical issues related to pandemic influenza, including issues surrounding the duty to care. Participants included Canadian residents aged 18 and over who were fluent in English. Data were collected through day-long facilitated group discussions using case scenarios and focus group guides. Participant's views were organized according to several themes, including the following main themes (and respective sub-themes): 1. Legitimate limits; a) competing obligations; and b) appeal to personal choice; and 2. Legitimate expectations; a) reciprocity; and b) enforcement and planning. Our findings show that participants moved away from categorical notions of the duty to care towards more equivocal and often normative views throughout deliberations. Our analysis contributes a better understanding of the constitutive nature of the duty to care, defined in part by taking account of public views. This broadened understanding can further inform the articulation of acceptable norms of duty to care and policy development efforts. What is more, it illustrates the urgent need for policy-makers and regulators to get clarity on obligations, responsibilities, and accountability in the execution of HCPs' duty to care during times of universal vulnerability.