Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions

Justifying access to kidney care in low resource and humanitarian settings

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Access to and quality of kidney care is not equitable between or within countries. A natural question is whether global kidney care inequities are always unjustifiable and unfair, or are sometimes due to unavoidable competing or conflicting ethical duties or responsibilities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Health is a fundamental right for all people. People with kidney conditions should have the same claim on this human right as others. Countries have an obligation to progressively fulfil this right and a duty to do so equitably, but global progress has been slow. Countries with limited resources or faced with humanitarian emergencies must set priorities to allocate resources fairly. This process involves trade-offs and often people requiring kidney replacement therapy are left out because of costs, logistics and lack of data. Major burdens are placed on clinicians who grapple between their duty to their patient and professional codes and their responsibility to a 'greater good'. These dilemmas apply also to industry, governments and the international community who must recognize their share in these duties.

SUMMARY

Inequities in kidney health and care must be acknowledged and sustainable and collaborative solutions urgently found such that right to kidney care is progressively upheld for everyone everywhere.

Allocation of Treatment Slots in Elective Mental Health Care-Are Waiting Lists the Ethically Most Appropriate Option?

Waiting lists are a standard approach to managing excess demand in elective health care. While waiting times are an important policy issue, the ethical validity of the first come, first served (FCFS) principle as such is rarely questioned. Presenting a psychiatric day hospital where all eligible patients have roughly equal claims as a case study, we criticize the reflex use of FCFS for allocation of elective psychiatric care, consider conditions under which this may not be the optimal strategy, and discuss alternatives. We conclude that in our example prioritizing more recent referrals (last come, first served [LCFS]) makes more sense, clinically and ethically. Where several referrals arrive (near-)simultaneously under LCFS, we propose that a higher level of scrutiny be applied to detect possible good reasons for prioritizing one of them. We believe that our observations can be applied to other health care settings that share relevant characteristics with our case.

Severity and Temporality in Healthcare Priority Setting - A Case for A Condition-specific Affectable Time-neutral Approach

Priority setting of scarce resources in healthcare is high on the agenda of most healthcare systems implying a need to develop robust foundations for making fair allocation decisions. One central factor for such decisions in needs-based systems, following both empirical studies and theoretical analyses, is severity. However, it has been noted that severity is an under-theorized concept. One such aspect is how severity should relate to temporality. There is a rich discussion on temporality and distributive justice, however, this discussion needs to be adapted to the practical and ethical requirements of healthcare priority setting principles at mid-level. In this article, we analyze how temporal aspects should be taken into account when assessing severity as a modifier for cost-effectiveness. We argue that when assessing the severity of a condition, we have reason to look at complete conditions from a time-neutral perspective, meaning that we take the full affectable stretch of the condition into account without modifying severity as patients move through the temporal stretch and without discounting the future. We do not find support for taking the 'shape' of a condition into account per se, e.g. whether the severity has a declining or inclining curve, or that severity is intermittent rather than continuous. In order to take severity seriously, we argue that we have reason to apply a quantified approach where every difference in severity should impact on priority setting. In conclusion, we find that this approach is practically useful in actual priority setting.

Toward Equity in Global Access to SoHO-based Therapies: Recommendations for Action

Therapies derived from substances of human origin (SoHOs) such as organs, cells, and tissues provide life-saving or life-changing treatment for millions of people worldwide each year. However, many people lack timely access to SoHO-based therapies because of insufficient supplies of these exceptional health resources and/or broader barriers in access to healthcare. Despite well-established governmental commitments to promote health equity in general and equity of access to SoHOs in particular, information about inequities in access to most SoHO-based therapies is scarce. Furthermore, the issue of equitable allocation of SoHO-based therapies has received little attention from policymakers and ethicists, except in the context of organ allocation for transplantation. Consequently, the extent and nature of potential inequities within and between countries are largely unknown, and few sources of guidance are available to support progress toward equity in global access to SoHO-based therapies. We present here the findings of an international ethics working group convened in preparation for the 2023 Global Summit on Convergence in Transplantation, organized in Santander, Spain. The group sought to assess potential gaps in knowledge about inequities involving SoHO-based therapies, to elucidate systemic factors that may influence access to these therapies, and to consider how policies and frameworks governing access to and allocation of SoHO-based therapies may promote equity when it is necessary to define boundaries in access because of insufficiency of supply. In discussing these challenges, we also outline several recommendations for action by governments and health authorities.

Ethical Decision-Making for Self-Driving Vehicles: A Proposed Model & List of Value-Laden Terms that Warrant (Technical) Specification

Self-driving vehicles (SDVs) will need to make decisions that carry ethical dimensions and are of normative significance. For example, by choosing a specific trajectory, they determine how risks are distributed among traffic participants. Accordingly, policymakers, standardization organizations and scholars have conceptualized what (shall) constitute(s) ethical decision-making for SDVs. Eventually, these conceptualizations must be converted into specific system requirements to ensure proper technical implementation. Therefore, this article aims to translate critical requirements recently formulated in scholarly work, existing standards, regulatory drafts and guidelines into an explicit five-step ethical decision model for SDVs during hazardous situations. This model states a precise sequence of steps, indicates the guiding ethical principles that inform each step and points out a list of terms that demand further investigation and technical specification. By integrating ethical, legal and engineering considerations, we aim to contribute to the scholarly debate on computational ethics (particularly in autonomous driving) while offering practitioners in the automotive sector a decision-making process for SDVs that is technically viable, legally permissible, ethically grounded and adaptable to societal values. In the future, assessing the actual impact, effectiveness and admissibility of implementing the here sketched theories, terms and the overall decision process requires an empirical evaluation and testing of the overall decision-making model.

Ethics in humanitarian settings-relevance and consequences for dialysis and kidney care

With the increasing frequency and severity of disasters and the increasing number of patients living with kidney disease, on dialysis and with transplants around the world, the need for kidney care in humanitarian settings is increasing. Almost all humanitarian emergencies pose a threat to kidney health because all treatments are highly susceptible to interruption, and interruption can be deadly. Providing support for people requiring dialysis in humanitarian settings can be complex and is associated with many trade-offs. The global kidney care community must become familiar with the ethics, principles and duties essential to meeting the overarching goals of ethical and effective disaster relief. Ethics principles and values must be considered on the individual, public health and global levels. The wellbeing of a single patient must be considered in the context of the competing needs of many others, and optimal treatment may not be possible due to resource constraints. Public health ethics principles, including considerations of triage and resource allocation, maximization of benefit and feasibility, often become directly relevant at the bedside. Individuals delivering humanitarian relief must be well trained, competent, respectful and professional, while involved organizations need to uphold the highest professional and ethical standards. There may be dissonance between ethical guidance and practical realities in humanitarian settings, which for inexperienced individuals may present significant challenges. Sustaining dialysis care in emergencies brings these issues starkly to the fore. Preparedness for dialysis in emergencies is an ethical imperative that mandates multisectoral stakeholder engagement and action, development of surge response plans, clinical and ethics guidance, and transparent priority setting. This manuscript outlines common ethics challenges and considerations that apply in all humanitarian actions, and illustrates their relevance to kidney care as a whole, using examples of how these may apply to dialysis and kidney disaster relief efforts in humanitarian settings.

Patients' perspectives on ethical principles to fairly allocate scarce surgical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands: a Q-methodology study

OBJECTIVES

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals were faced with prioritisation dilemmas due to limited surgical capacity. While the views of healthcare professionals on fair allocation have been given considerable attention, the views of patients have been overlooked. To address this imbalance, our study aimed to identify which ethical principles are most supported by patients regarding the fair allocation of surgical resources.

DESIGN

A Q-methodology study was conducted. Participants ranked ordered 20 statements covering different viewpoints on fair allocation according to their point of view, followed by an interview. Principal component analysis followed by varimax rotation was used to identify subgroups who broadly agreed in terms of their rankings.

SETTING

The setting of this study was in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

16 patient representatives were purposively sampled.

RESULTS

Two perspectives were identified, both of which supported utilitarianism. In perspective 1, labelled as 'clinical needs and outcomes', resource allocation should aim to maximise the health gains based on individual patient characteristics. In perspective 2, labelled as 'population outcomes and contribution to society', allocation should maximise health gains as with perspective 1, but this should also consider societal gains.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a broad agreement among patient representatives that utilitarianism should be the guiding ethical principle for fair allocation of scarce surgical resources. The insights gained from this study should be integrated into policymaking and prioritisation strategies in future healthcare crises.

Drug Shortage and Ethical Issues: Integrating Multidisciplinary Perspectives with a Shared Ethical Framework

Drug shortages can cause ethical dilemmas when no systematic, equitable allocation, or utilization schema is in place. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an ethical framework outlining moral values was proposed as way to approach allocating limited resources to patients. In addition to an ethical perspective, it is prudent to consider costs. Examining existing economic frameworks and combining them with an ethical perspective may provide a practical, systematic process for decision makers when allocating drugs in short supply. Drug shortages continue to impact multiple areas across different subspecialties of medicine due to multiple factors, including limited manufacturers, regulatory issues, and costs. All of these factors make it difficult to anticipate and manage drug shortages effectively, but developing a combined framework may reduce some of the ethical and equitable ambiguity with regards to patient care.

Ethical Considerations and Equipoise in Cancer Surgery

The changing landscape of cancer surgery requires ongoing consideration of ethical issues to ensure patient-centered care and fair access to treatments. With technological advancements and the global expansion of surgical interventions, healthcare professionals must navigate complex ethical dilemmas related to patient autonomy, informed consent, and the impact of new technologies on the physician-patient relationship. Additionally, ethical principles and decision-making in oncology, especially in the context of genetic predisposition to breast cancer, highlight the importance of integrating patient knowledge, preferences, and alignment between goals and treatments. As global surgery continues to grow, addressing ethical considerations becomes crucial to reduce disparities in access to surgical interventions and uphold ethical duties in patient care. Furthermore, the rise of digital applications in healthcare, such as digital surgery, requires heightened awareness of the unique ethical issues in this domain. The ethical implications of using artificial intelligence (AI) in robotic surgical training have drawn attention to the challenges of protecting patient and surgeon data, as well as the ethical boundaries that innovation may encounter. These discussions collectively emphasize the complex ethical issues associated with surgical innovation and underscore the importance of upholding ethical standards in the pursuit of progress in the field. In this study, we thoroughly analyzed previous scholarly works on ethical considerations and equipoise in the field of oncological surgery. Our main focus was on the use of AI in this specific context.

The Equitable Benefit Approach to guide the assessment of medical and psychosocial factors in liver transplant candidacy

Lack of available organs poses a significant challenge in meeting the needs of patients with life-threatening liver disease who could benefit from liver transplantation (LT). Psychosocial vulnerability markers have been linked to post-transplant outcomes, raising questions about their use in patient selection. However, their incorporation into selection criteria raises concerns about health equity and potential discrimination. As a result, there is a pressing need to refine fair allocation systems that consider both clinical and psychosocial factors to ensure equitable access and optimize post-transplant outcomes. The Equitable Benefit Approach (EBA) proposed in this paper by the multidisciplinary group of clinical experts in LT from the Italian Society for the Study of the Liver seeks to address these concerns. It presents four procedural principles, the two allocative principles usually applied in transplantation (urgency and utility) and introduces a new one, the principle of health equity. The EBA aims to prioritize patients with the highest transplant benefit while addressing health inequalities. It emphasizes evidence-based decision-making and standardized assessment tools to reliably evaluate psychosocial risk factors. Implementing the EBA involves a multi-step process, including stakeholder engagement, prospective studies to validate its efficacy, development of institutional policies and algorithms, and ongoing monitoring and revision. By following these steps, health care providers can ensure that LT allocation decisions are transparent and responsive to evolving clinical and social contexts. Ultimately, the EBA should offer a comprehensive framework for fair patient selection in LT, considering both biomedical and psychosocial aspects.

COVID-19 critical care triage across Canada: a narrative synthesis and ethical analysis of early provincial triage protocols

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic created conditions of scarcity that led many provinces within Canada to develop triage protocols for critical care resources. In this study, we sought to undertake a narrative synthesis and ethical analysis of early provincial pandemic triage protocols.

METHODS

We collected provincial triage protocols through personal correspondence with academic and political stakeholders between June and August 2020. Protocol data were extracted independently by two researchers and compared for accuracy and agreement. We separated data into three categories for comparative content analysis: protocol development, ethical framework, and protocol content. Our ethical analysis was informed by a procedural justice framework.

RESULTS

We obtained a total of eight provincial triage protocols. Protocols were similar in content, although age, physiologic scores, and functional status were variably incorporated. Most protocols were developed through a multidisciplinary, expert-driven, consensus process, and many were informed by influenza pandemic guidelines previously developed in Ontario. All protocols employed tiered morality-focused exclusion criteria to determine scarce resource allocation at the level of regional health care systems. None included a public engagement phase, although targeted consultation with public advocacy groups and relevant stakeholders was undertaken in select provinces. Most protocols were not publicly available in 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Early provincial COVID-19 triage protocols were developed by dedicated expert committees under challenging circumstances. Nonetheless, few were publicly available, and public consultation was limited. No protocols were ever implemented, including during periods of extreme critical care surge. A national approach to pandemic triage that incorporates additional aspects of procedural justice should be considered in preparation for future pandemics.

Ethical guidelines for the allocation of scarce intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic: Discussing a Brazilian proposal

RATIONALE

In the context of a major health crisis, health professionals must first compare patients' recovery prospects, thus giving priority to the goal of saving the greatest number of lives.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Critically evaluate a protocol for allocation of scarce intensive care units (ICU), which the authors proposed at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and originally published in two Brazilian newspapers; and compare that protocol with similar proposals, particularly with 2 successive protocols issued by the Brazilian Critical Care Association. The main objective is to highlight the advantages of the authors' approach and discuss some criticisms that has been levelled against the proposed protocol after its original publication in 2020.

METHOD

Comparative analysis of 3 different protocols (the authors' proposed protocol and 2 successive protocols issued by the Brazilian Critical Care Association) with regard to ethical principles.

RESULTS

The main objective of a healthcare system is to ensure a fair patient triage process when it is impossible to grant admission to all patients in need of treatment. Decision-making regarding the impartial prioritization of ICU admissions must be based primarily on clinical criteria. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) is, for ethical and technical reasons, a useful tool for clinical assessments of patients. Based on three ranges of SOFA scores, patients can be classified into a "high", a "medium", and a "low" priority group. In the case of ties, the life cycle principle must be the tiebreaker. If the tie persists, a draw must be used.

CONCLUSION

The authors' proposed protocol has advantages over the other two protocols due to its greater practicality and capacity to account for egalitarian and consequentialist principles simultaneously. It aims at saving as many lives as possible within the constraints of fairness. Furthermore, the proposed protocol avoids discrimination against people with disabilities without, at the same time, promoting discrimination against the elderly.

Implementation of an Approach to Equitable Allocation of SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies for Preexposure Prophylaxis: Experience From a Single Medical Center

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for preexposure prophylaxis (SMA-PrEP) offered patients who were immunocompromised another option for protection. However, SMA-PrEP posed administrative, operational, and ethical challenges for health care facilities, resulting in few patients receiving them. Although the first SMA-PrEP medication, tixagevimab and cilgavimab, had its authorization revoked due to compromised in vitro efficacy, new SMA-PrEP medications are currently completing clinical trials. This article provides an operational framework for administrative organization, patient identification and prioritization, equitable medication allocation, medication ordering and administration, and patient tracking.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study evaluating our hospital's SMA-PrEP administration strategy was performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with receipt of SMA-PrEP.

Results

Despite the barriers in administering this medication and the scarcity of resources, our hospital was able to administer at least 1 dose of SMA-PrEP to 1359 of 5902 (23.0%) eligible patients. Even with the steps taken to promote equitable allocation, multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that there were still differences by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. As compared with patients who identified as Black, patients who identified as White (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.46-2.33), Asian (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.03-2.46), and Hispanic (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02-2.44) were more likely to receive SMA-PrEP. When compared with patients with low socioeconomic status, patients with high socioeconomic status (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.05-1.78) were more likely to be allocated SMA-PrEP.

Conclusions

Despite efforts to mitigate health care disparities, differences by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status still arose in patients receiving SMA-PrEP.

BOMS: blockchain-enabled organ matching system

This work proposes a Blockchain-enabled Organ Matching System (BOMS) designed to manage the process of matching, storing, and sharing information. Biological factors are incorporated into matching and the cross-matching process is implemented into the smart contracts. Privacy is guaranteed by using patient-associated blockchain addresses, without transmitting or using patient personal records in the matching process. The matching algorithm implemented as a smart contract is verifiable by any party. Clinical records, process updates, and matching results are also stored on the blockchain, providing tamper-resistance of recipient's records and the recipients' waiting queue. The system also is capable of handling cases in which there is a donor without an immediate compatible recipient. The system is implemented on the Ethereum blockchain and several scenarios were tested. The performance of the proposed system is compared to other existing organ donation systems, and ours outperformed any existing organ matching system built on blockchain. BOMS is tested to ascertain its compatibility with public, private, and consortium blockchain networks, checks for security vulnerabilities and cross-matching efficiency. The implementation codes are available online.

Optimizing the doses of cancer drugs after usual dose finding

Since the middle of the 20th century, oncology's dose-finding paradigm has been oriented toward identifying a drug's maximum tolerated dose, which is then carried forward into phase 2 and 3 trials and clinical practice. For most modern precision medicines, however, maximum tolerated dose is far greater than the minimum dose needed to achieve maximal benefit, leading to unnecessary side effects. Regulatory change may decrease maximum tolerated dose's predominance by enforcing dose optimization of new drugs. Dozens of already approved cancer drugs require re-evaluation, however, introducing a new methodologic and ethical challenge in cancer clinical trials. In this article, we assess the history and current landscape of cancer drug dose finding. We provide a set of strategic priorities for postapproval dose optimization trials of the future. We discuss ethical considerations for postapproval dose optimization trial design and review three major design strategies for these unique trials that would both adhere to ethical standards and benefit patients and funders. We close with a discussion of financial and reporting considerations in the realm of dose optimization. Taken together, we provide a comprehensive, bird's eye view of the postapproval dose optimization trial landscape and offer our thoughts on the next steps required of methodologies and regulatory and funding regimes.

The Extent to Which the Wish to Donate One's Organs After Death Contributes to Life-Extension Arguments in Favour of Voluntary Active Euthanasia in the Terminally Ill: An Ethical Analysis

In terminally ill individuals who would otherwise end their own lives, active voluntary euthanasia (AVE) can be seen as life-extending rather than life-shortening. Accordingly, AVE supports key pro-euthanasia arguments (appeals to autonomy and beneficence) and meets certain sanctity of life objections. This paper examines the extent to which a terminally ill individual's wish to donate organs after death contributes to those life-extension arguments. It finds that, in a terminally ill individual who wishes to avoid experiencing life he considers to be not worth living, and who also wishes to donate organs after death, AVE maximizes the likelihood that such donations will occur. The paper finds that the wish to donate organs strengthens the appeals to autonomy and beneficence, and fortifies the meeting of certain sanctity of life objections, achieved by life-extension arguments, and also generates appeals to justice that form novel life-extension arguments in favour of AVE in this context.

Surgical waitlist management: Perspectives from surgeons on surgical prioritization at a paediatric hospital

Globally exacerbated surgical waitlists have provided the opportunity to reflect on prioritization and resource allocation decisions. The unique circumstances of paediatric surgery and consequences of surgical delay prompted the study reported in this paper. As part of a larger project to attend to prioritization in our surgical waitlists, we conducted a Quality Improvement study, the purpose of which is to understand surgeon's perspectives regarding the ethical and practical realities of surgical prioritization at our institution. The study comprises semi-structured interviews with nine full-time paediatric surgeons from a variety of subspecialties conducted at our institution, which is a tertiary paediatric hospital with ten surgical subspecialties in a publicly funded healthcare system. Participants articulated how they prioritize their waitlists, and how they understand ethical prioritization. These findings resonate with the growing public concern for ethical practice in healthcare delivery and transparency in prioritization and resource allocation practices. Specifically, more transparency, consistency, and support is required in prioritization practices. This work highlights the importance of institutional dialogue regarding surgical case prioritization. Because quality improvement work is necessarily site-specific, concrete generalizations cannot be offered. However, the insights gleaned from these interviews and the process by which they were gleaned are a valuable knowledge-sharing resource for any institution that is interested in ongoing quality improvement work. The objectives here were to clarify the goals of prioritization within the institution, improve prioritization practices, and make them more ethical and transparent.

Awareness, Attitude, and Fertility Desire in Elective Oocyte Cryopreservation of Adults in Four Areas of China

Purpose

Controversy exists on whether or not elective oocyte cryopreservation (eOC) can be conducted in public hospitals in China. Policymakers should take into account the benefits and risks in the Chinese population. This study explored basic data concerning the awareness, attitudes of eOC, and fertility desire of eOC in China to offer evidence for policy making.

Methods

A total of 442 people in four areas of China responded to a survey. The questionnaire was divided into three parts: awareness, attitude, and fertility desire of eOC. Descriptive analysis and multivariable regression analysis were used in the study.

Results

Generally, the respondents had a positive or neutral attitude towards eOC. However, about 90% of respondents did not know the cost of eOC. In general, a more positive attitude was found towards eOC among participants who had heard of the procedure compared with those who had not. Most women did not desire to reproduce by eOC. After adjusting for access to information, we found that female, older age groups, and singles were more likely to have increased awareness than their counterparts. The awareness of participants who accessed information from any source had a higher relative probability of having good awareness levels compared to participants who had not accessed the information. Undergraduates exhibited significantly higher levels of cognitive understanding, as indicated by their increased familiarity and comprehension, compared to high school students (relative risk ratio = 1.44, confidence interval = 0.48,4.29).

Conclusion

Continued discussion is needed regarding the ethical, legal, and social aspects of performing eOC in public hospitals. Furthermore, policies are needed to regulate eOC to protect the reproductive freedom of healthy women.

Multidisciplinary Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part I - Surgical treatments

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of HCC management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the first part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and surgical treatments of HCC.

Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles.

RESULTS

Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

Discrimination against the dying

The purpose of this paper is to identify a kind of discrimination that has hitherto gone unrecognised. 'Terminalism' is discrimination against the dying, or treating the terminally ill worse than they would expect to be treated if they were not dying. I provide four examples from healthcare settings of this kind of discrimination: hospice eligibility requirements, allocation protocols for scarce medical resources, right to try laws and right to die laws. I conclude by offering some reflections on why discrimination against the dying has been hard to identify, how it differs from ageism and ableism, and its significance for end-of-life care.

Healthcare resource allocation decisions and non-emergency treatments in the aftermath of Covid-19 pandemic. How should children with chronic illness feature in prioritisation processes?

Background

In the aftermath of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic, allocation of non-urgent medical interventions is a persistent ethical challenge as health systems currently face an unprecedented backlog of patients requiring treatment. Difficult decisions must be made that prioritise certain patients over others. Ethical resource allocation requires that the needs of all patients are considered properly, but at present there is no guidance that can help support such decision-making which explicitly considers the needs of children with chronic and complex conditions.

Methods

This paper reviews the NHS guidance for priorities and operational planning and examines how the needs of children with chronic illness are addressed in NHS objectives for restoring services and meeting elective care demands.

Results

The usual criteria for prioritisation featured in the NHS guidance fail to account for the distinct needs of children with chronic illnesses and fail to match more general considerations of what constitutes fair resource allocation decisions. To address this issue, two considerations, namely 'protecting age-related opportunity' and 'recognising complexity of care,' are proposed as additions to the existing approach.

Conclusion

By providing a broader conception of needs, these criteria address inefficiencies of the current guidance and relevant ethical frameworks and help to embed a currently missing children-related ethical approach to healthcare policy making in general.

Explicit discrimination and ingroup favoritism, but no implicit biases in hypothetical triage decisions during COVID-19

Disturbingly realistic triage scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity for studying discrimination in moral reasoning. Biases and favoritism do not need to be explicit and overt, but can remain implicit and covert. In addition to assessing laypeople's propensity for engaging in overt discrimination, the present study examines whether they reveal implicit biases through seemingly fair random allocations. We present a cross-sectional online study comprising 6 timepoints and a total of 2296 participants. Each individual evaluated 19 hypothetical scenarios that provide an allocation dilemma between two patients who are in need of ventilation and differ only in one focal feature. Participants could either allocate the last ventilator to a patient, or opt for random allocation to express impartiality. Overall, participants exhibited clear biases for the patient who was expected to be favored based on health factors, previous ethical or caretaking behaviors, and in-group favoritism. If one patient had been pre-allocated care, a higher probability of keeping the ventilator for the favored patient indicates persistent favoritism. Surprisingly, the absence of an asymmetry in random allocations indicates the absence of covert discrimination. Our results demonstrate that laypeople's hypothetical triage decisions discriminate overtly and show explicit biases.

Challenges for Medical Students in Applying Ethical Principles to Allocate Life-Saving Medical Devices During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant ethical dilemma in the allocation of scarce, life-saving medical equipment to critically ill patients. It remains uncertain whether medical students are equipped to navigate this complex ethical process.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the ability and confidence of medical students to apply principles of medical ethics in allocating critical medical devices through the scenario of virtual patients.

METHODS

The study recruited third- and fourth-year medical students during clinical rotation. We facilitated interactions between medical students and virtual patients experiencing respiratory failure due to COVID-19 infection. We assessed the students' ability to ethically allocate life-saving resources. Subsequently, we analyzed their written reports using thematic analysis to identify the ethical principles guiding their decision-making.

RESULTS

We enrolled a cohort of 67 out of 71 medical students with a mean age of 34 (SD 4.7) years, 60% (n=40) of whom were female students. The principle of justice was cited by 73% (n=49) of students while analyzing this scenario. A majority of them expressed hesitancy in determining which patient should receive life-saving resources, with 46% (n=31) citing the principle of nonmaleficence, 31% (n=21) advocating for a first-come-first-served approach, and 25% (n=17) emphasizing respect for patient autonomy as key influencers in their decisions. Notably, medical students exhibited a lack of confidence in making ethical decisions concerning the distribution of medical resources. A minority, comprising 12% (n=8), proposed the exploration of legal alternatives, while 4% (n=3) suggested medical guidelines and collective decision-making as potential substitutes for individual ethical choices to alleviate the stress associated with personal decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of improving ethical reasoning under time constraints using virtual platforms. More than 70% of medical students identified justice as the predominant principle in allocating limited medical resources to critically ill patients. However, they exhibited a lack of confidence in making ethical determinations and leaned toward principles such as nonmaleficence, patient autonomy, adherence to legal and medical standards, and collective decision-making to mitigate the pressure associated with such decisions.

ABO-adjusted cPRA metric for kidney allocation in an Asian-predominant population

Recent studies showed that ABO-adjusted calculated panel reactive antibody (ABO-cPRA) may better reflect the histocompatibility level in a multi-ethnic population, but such data in Asians is not available. We developed an ABO-adjusted cPRA metric on a cohort of waitlist kidney transplant patients (n = 647, 99% Chinese) in Hong Kong, based on HLA alleles and ABO frequencies of local donors. The concordance between the web-based ABO-cPRA calculator and the impact on kidney allocation were evaluated. The blood group distribution for A, B, O and AB among waitlist kidney candidates were 26.2%, 27.5%, 40.1%, and 6.1%, and their chances of encountering incompatible blood group donors were 32.6%, 32.4%, 57.6%, and 0%, respectively. There is poor agreement between web-based ABO-cPRA calculator and our locally developed metrics. Over 90% of patients showed an increase in cPRA after ABO adjustment, most notably in those with cPRA between 70% and 79%. Blood group O patients had a much greater increase in cPRA scores after adjustment while patients of blood group A and B had similar increment. 10.6% of non-AB blood group waitlist patients had ABO-cPRA elevated to ≥80%. A local ABO-adjusted cPRA metric is required for Asian populations and may improve equity in kidney distribution for patients with disadvantageous blood groups. The result from the current study potentially helps other countries/localities in establishing their own unified ABO-cPRA metrics and predict the impact on kidney allocation.

Canadian Kidney Transplant Professionals' Perspectives on Precision Medicine and Molecular Matching in Kidney Allocation

Background

Antibody-mediated rejection is an important cause of kidney transplant loss. A new strategy requiring application of precision medicine tools in transplantation considers molecular compatibility between donors and recipients and holds the promise of improved immunologic risk, preventing rejection and premature graft loss. The objective of this study was to gather Canadian transplant professionals' perspectives on molecular compatibility in kidney transplantation.

Methods

Seventeen Canadian transplant professionals (14 nephrologists, 2 nurses, and 1 surgeon) participated in semistructured interviews in 2021. The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the qualitative description approach.

Results

Participants identified fair access to transplantation as the most important principle in kidney allocation. Molecular compatibility was viewed as a promising innovation. However, participants were concerned about increased waiting times, negative impact on some patients, and potential problems related to the adequacy of information explaining this new technology. To mitigate the challenges associated with molecular matching, participants suggested integrating a maximum waiting time for molecular-matched kidneys and expanding the program nationally/internationally.

Conclusions

Molecular matching in kidney transplantation is viewed as a promising technology for decreasing the incidence of antibody-mediated rejection and improving graft survival. Further studies are needed to determine how to ethically integrate this technology into the kidney allocation algorithm.

Chapitre 4. Subventions discriminatoires de soins medicaux à l’épreuve du principe éthique de la justice : cas d’un service d’orl au burkina faso

INTRODUCTION

A legal exception to the principle of equal health rights, discriminatory subsidies often pose an ethical dilemma in the field of application.

AIM

To analyze discriminatory subsidies for healthcare in the light of the ethical principle of justice and to propose alternatives to any inherent legal and ethical conflicts.

METHOD

This was a qualitative, descriptive and analytical study based on semi-structured interviews with caregivers.

RESULTS

Participants felt that the application of discriminatory subsidies has a negative impact on substantial distributive justice. The infringements of the award conditions were exclusively for the benefit of the patients concerned. Their impact was considered positive on distributive justice and negative on formal justice.

DISCUSSION

Discriminatory care subsidies generally stem from a legal requirement whose application should not be ambiguous. It is apparent that the infringements of the conditions for attribution were in favour of substantial distributive justice. This opposition is a potential source of decision-making difficulties for caregivers who often choose to violate conditions for the benefit of their indigent patients. There are therefore violations of ethically understandable standards, which must be admitted. This could be done through the provision of exceptions for the application of standards for ”noble causes” and conscientious objection clauses in health policy texts.

CONCLUSION

The legitimacy of health policy norms is essential for their effective application, hence the interest of taking distributive justice into account in the genesis of formal norms.

Ethical Frameworks and Global Health: A Narrative Review of the "Leave No One Behind" Principle

The "Leave No One Behind" (LNOB) principle, a fundamental commitment of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, emphasizes the urgent need to address and reduce global health inequalities. As global health initiatives strive to uphold this principle, they face significant ethical challenges in balancing equity, resource allocation, and diverse health priorities. This narrative review critically examines these ethical dilemmas and their implications for translating LNOB into actionable global health strategies. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Semantic Scholar, covering publications from January 1990 to April 2024. The review included peer-reviewed articles, gray literature, and official reports that addressed the ethical dimensions of LNOB in global health contexts. A thematic analysis was employed to identify and synthesize recurring ethical issues, dilemmas, and proposed solutions. The thematic analysis identified 4 primary ethical tensions that complicate the operationalization of LNOB: (1) Universalism versus Targeting, where the challenge lies in balancing broad health improvements with targeted interventions for the most disadvantaged; (2) Resource Scarcity versus Equity; highlighting the ethical conflicts between maximizing efficiency and ensuring fairness; (3) Top-down versus Bottom-up Approaches, reflecting the tension between externally driven initiatives and local community needs; and (4) Short-term versus Long-term Sustainability, addressing the balance between immediate health interventions and sustainable systemic changes. To navigate these ethical challenges effectively, global health strategies must adopt a nuanced, context-sensitive approach incorporating structured decision-making processes and authentic community participation. The review advocates for systemic reforms that address the root causes of health disparities, promote equitable collaboration between health practitioners and marginalized communities, and align global health interventions with ethical imperatives. Such an approach is essential to truly operationalize the LNOB principle and foster sustainable health equity.

Survival benefit from liver transplantation for patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma

Background & Aims

In the USA, inequal liver transplantation (LT) access exists between patients with and without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Survival benefit considers survival without and with LT and could equalise LT access. We calculated bias-corrected LT survival benefit for patients with(out) HCC who underwent a transplant, based on longitudinal data in a recent United States cohort.

Methods

Adult LT candidates with(out) HCC between 2010 and 2019 were included. Waitlist survival over time was contrasted to post-transplant survival, to estimate 5-year survival benefit from the moment of LT. Waitlist survival was modelled with a bias-corrected Cox regression, and post-transplant survival was estimated through Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

Mean HCC survival without LT was always lower than non-HCC waitlist survival. Below model for end-stage liver disease (sodium) (MELD(-Na)) 30, patients with HCC gained more life-years from LT than patients without HCC at the same MELD(-Na) score. Only patients without HCC below MELD(-Na) 9 had negative benefit. Most patients with HCC underwent a transplant below MELD(-Na) 14, and most patients without HCC underwent a transplant above MELD(-Na) 26. Liver function [MELD(-Na), albumin] was the main predictor of 5-year benefit. Therefore, during 5 years, most patients with HCC gained 0.12 to 1.96 years from LT, whereas most patients without HCC gained 2.48 to 3.45 years.

Conclusions

On an individual level, performing a transplant in patients with HCC resulted in survival benefit. However, on a population level, benefit was indirectly decreased, as patients without HCC were likely to gain more survival owing to decreased liver function. For patients who underwent a transplant, a constructed online calculator estimates 5-year survival benefit given specific patient characteristics. Survival benefit scores could serve to equalise LT access.

Impact and implications

Benefit is a comparison of the survival with and without liver transplantation, and it is important when deciding who should undergo a transplant. Liver function is most important when predicting possible benefit from transplantation. Patients with liver cancer die sooner on the waiting list than similar patients without liver cancer. However, patients with liver cancer more often have better liver function. Most patients without liver cancer derive more benefit from transplantation than patients with liver cancer.

Ethical issues encountered by French intensive care unit caregivers during the first COVID-19 outbreak

PURPOSE

We aimed to describe the ethical issues encountered by health care workers during the first COVID-19 outbreak in French intensive care units (ICUs), and the factors associated with their emergence.

METHODS

This descriptive multicentre survey study was conducted by distributing a questionnaire to 26 French ICUs, from 1 June to 1 October 2020. Physicians, residents, nurses, and orderlies who worked in an ICU during the first COVID-19 outbreak were included. Multiple logistic regression models were performed to identify the factors associated with ethical issues.

RESULTS

Among the 4,670 questionnaires sent out, 1,188 responses were received, giving a participation rate of 25.4%. Overall, 953 participants (80.2%) reported experiencing issue(s) while caring for patients during the first COVID-19 outbreak. The most common issues encountered concerned the restriction of family visits in the ICU (91.7%) and the risk of contamination for health care workers (72.3%). Nurses and orderlies faced this latter issue more than physicians (adjusted odds ratio [ORa], 2.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.87 to 4.76; P < 0.001 and ORa, 4.35; 95% CI, 2.08 to 9.12; P < 0.001, respectively). They also faced more the issue "act contrary to the patient's advance directives" (ORa, 4.59; 95% CI, 1.74 to 12.08; P < 0.01 and ORa, 10.65; 95% CI, 3.71 to 30.60; P < 0.001, respectively). A total of 1,132 (86.9%) respondents thought that ethics training should be better integrated into the initial training of health care workers.

CONCLUSION

Eight out of ten responding French ICU health care workers experienced ethical issues during the first COVID-19 outbreak. Identifying these issues is a first step towards anticipating and managing such issues, particularly in the context of potential future health crises.

[The selection of patients in palliative care units, a necessary condition for maintaining care]

« Les humanités en santé : approches de terrain » sont coordonnées par Claire Crignon, professeure d’histoire et de philosophie des sciences à l’université de Lorraine, qui a créé le master « humanités biomédicales » à Sorbonne université.

Targeted randomization dose optimization trials enable fractional dosing of scarce drugs

Administering drug at a dose lower than that used in pivotal clinical trials, known as fractional dosing, can stretch scarce resources. Implementing fractional dosing with confidence requires understanding a drug's dose-response relationship. Clinical trials aimed at describing dose-response in scarce, efficacious drugs risk underdosing, leading dose-finding trials to not be pursued despite their obvious potential benefit. We developed a new set of response-adaptive randomized dose-finding trials and demonstrate, in a series of simulated trials across diverse dose-response curves, these designs' efficiency in identifying the minimum dose that achieves satisfactory efficacy. Compared to conventional designs, these trials have higher probabilities of identifying lower doses while reducing the risks of both population- and subject-level underdosing. We strongly recommend that, upon demonstration of a drug's efficacy, pandemic drug development swiftly proceeds with response-adaptive dose-finding trials. This unified strategy ensures that scarce effective drugs produce maximum social benefits.

Socially optimal dosing for scarce vaccines: Ethical analysis through the principlism framework

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Under conditions of vaccine scarcity, the socially optimal dosing (SOD) strategy administers a lower dose of vaccine to a larger number of people than the individually optimal dosing (IOD) strategy, which administers a higher dose of vaccine to a smaller number of people. In the context of vaccines that generate diminishing returns of effectiveness with each additional dose beyond the first, SOD therefore generates a greater total amount of vaccine-induced protection than IOD and, as such, constitutes the socially optimal strategy. While the clinical and public health arguments in favour of SOD have previously been outlined, this article conducts an ethical analysis of SOD for scarce vaccines through the ethical framework of principlism.

METHODS

SOD is examined with regard to each principle within the principlism framework-nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice.

RESULTS

SOD is found to satisfy each of the ethical requirements under examination. Regarding nonmaleficence, SOD induces less iatrogenic harm than IOD since the dose of vaccine administered to each individual is lower in the former than the latter. Furthermore, both the good and bad effects of SOD are foreseen while only the good effects are intended, meaning this strategy simultaneously satisfies the doctrine of double effect. Regarding autonomy, SOD makes vaccine-induced protection available to a greater number of individuals who wish to receive it, thereby respecting their capacity for self-determination and to make independent decisions. Regarding beneficence, SOD renders the good-namely the protection of health-more widely available to the individuals that constitute the population in question. Finally, SOD promotes theories of justice that treat individuals equally and is unlikely to reduce the effectiveness of other distribution policies that allocate scarce vaccines in a just manner.

CONCLUSION

In conditions of vaccine scarcity, SOD favourably satisfies the ethical framework of principlism.

Remote ultrasound diagnostics disrupting traditional military frontline healthcare delivery

Accurate and reliable diagnostic capability is essential in deployed healthcare to aid decision-making and mitigate risk. This is important for both the patient and the deployed healthcare system, especially when considering the prioritisation of scarce aeromedical evacuation assets and frontline resources. Novel ultrasound tele-guidance technology presents a valuable diagnostic solution for remotely deployed military clinicians. This report discusses the first use of a consultant radiologist guiding a clinician, untrained in ultrasound, to perform an ultrasound scan via a live tele-guidance feed in the deployed environment using the Butterfly iQ+ tele-guidance system. Distance scanning provided a diagnostic quality report when compared with locally performed imaging to improve patient care and maintain operational output. This example demonstrates feasibility of remote point-of-care imaging systems in provision of location-agnostic high-quality diagnostic capability. Future opportunities to develop care pathways using bedside tele-diagnostics will democratise access, drive efficiency and improve patient care experience and outcomes.

A proposal for formal fairness requirements in triage emergency departments: publicity, accessibility, relevance, standardisability and accountability

This paper puts forward a wish list of requirements for formal fairness in the specific context of triage in emergency departments (EDs) and maps the empirical and conceptual research questions that need to be addressed in this context in the near future. The pandemic has brought to the fore the necessity for public debate about how to allocate resources fairly in a situation of great shortage. However, issues of fairness arise also outside of pandemics: decisions about how to allocate resources are structurally unavoidable in healthcare systems, as value judgements underlie every allocative decision, although they are not always easily identifiable. In this paper, we set out to bridge this gap in the context of EDs. In the first part, we propose five formal requirements specifically applied for ED triage to be considered fair and legitimate: publicity, accessibility, relevance, standardisability and accountability. In the second part of the paper, we map the conceptual and empirical ethics questions that will need to be investigated to assess whether healthcare systems guarantee a formally just ED triage. In conclusion, we argue that there is a vast research landscape in need of an in-depth conceptual and empirical investigation in the context of ED triage in ordinary times. Addressing both types of questions in this context is vital for promoting a fair and legitimate ED triage and for fostering reflection on formal fairness allocative issues beyond triage.

Fair Allocation of Scarce CAR T-Cell Therapies for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

This Viewpoint discusses the unfairness of current CAR T-cell therapy allocation practices and offers alternative methods to more fairly allocate therapy.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Liver and Gastrointestinal Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

For many years, outcomes such as mortality and morbidity were the standard for evaluating oncological treatment effectiveness. With the introduction of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the focus shifted from a mere extension of a patient's life or release from disease to the improvement of a multilayered concept of health, decisively affecting life satisfaction. In this study, we deal with the topic of PROMs in liver and gastrointestinal randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

The final database included 43 papers reporting results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for liver or gastrointestinal cancer interventions where one of the primary or secondary outcomes was a health-related quality of life measure. The most often used PROM was the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) for both liver cancer and gastrointestinal cancer (in 62% of gastrointestinal cancer studies and 57% of liver cancer studies). For the gastrointestinal cancer group, the QLQ-STO22, a cancer-specific extension of the QLQ-C30, was the second most commonly used PROM. In liver cancer, the generic PROM Short Form 36 and the EORTC QLQ-HCC18, a cancer-specific extension of the QLQ-C30, were the second most commonly used PROMs.

CONCLUSION

We found that RCTs often do not include comprehensive quality-of-life measures. When quality of life is part of an RCT, it is often only a secondary outcome. For a holistic view of the patient, a stronger integration and weighting of patient-reported outcomes in RCTs would be desirable.

General public's understanding of rare diseases and their opinions on medical resource allocation in Japan: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases (RDs) may impose a considerable financial burden on patients and their families. Public acceptance is essential to ensure sustainable public systems supporting RDs, especially in countries with universal healthcare coverage, such as Japan. This study aimed to explore the public's understanding of RDs and identify crucial factors associated with the public acceptance of prioritizing financial support for RDs in Japan.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was sent to 131,220 Japanese residents aged 20-69 years. The items included in the questionnaire were general interest in medical science and medical care, general knowledge regarding RDs and health care systems, opinions on the cost of medical care, opinions on the research and development of RDs and common diseases, and individual characteristics.

RESULTS

The responses of 11,019 respondents were analyzed. Several respondents agreed to partially cover the medication cost of adult and pediatric RDs (59.5% and 66.8%, respectively) with public funding. The major reasons for agreeing were the huge financial burden imposed on patients and their families, limited available treatment options, effects of RDs on the life planning of patients, and difficulties caused by RDs in the patient's social life. Furthermore, the respondents ranked RDs (56.0%) higher than common diseases (44.0%) for government funding for research and development. The reasons for supporting government-funded research and development for RDs included the lack of treatment options for numerous RDs (34.9%) and difficulty of studying RDs owing to the small number of researchers (25.9%). The chief reasons for supporting government-funded research and development for common diseases were the large number of affected patients (59.7%) and the possibility of more treatment options becoming available through the promotion of research and development (22.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The general public considers burdens associated with daily living or finance more than the epidemiological characteristics of RD while making funding decisions, demonstrating that rarity was less prioritized. A gap appears to exist between the general public and RD experts regarding the understanding of the epidemiological characteristics of RD and its thresholds. This gap should be bridged to ensure that prioritization of financial support for RDs is accepted by the society.

Toward future triage regulations: Investigating preferred allocation principles of the German public

BACKGROUND

When intensive care capacity is limited, triage may be required. Given that the German government started working on new triage legislation in 2022, the present study investigated the German public's preferences for intensive care allocation in two situations: ex-ante triage (where multiple patients compete for available resources) and ex-post triage (where admitting a new patient to intensive care means withdrawing treatment from another because ICU resources are depleted).

METHOD

In an online experiment, N=994 participants were presented with four fictitious patients who differed in age and pre- and post-treatment chance of survival. In a series of pairwise comparisons, participants were asked to select one patient for treatment or to opt for random selection. Ex-ante and ex-post triage situations were varied between participants and preferred allocation strategies were inferred from their decisions.

RESULTS

On average, participants prioritized better post-treatment prognosis ahead of younger age or treatment benefit. Many participants rejected random allocation (on the flip of a coin) or prioritization by worse pre-treatment prognosis. Preferences were similar for ex-ante and ex-post situations.

DISCUSSION

Although there may be good reasons for deviating from laypeople's preference for utilitarian allocation, the results can help to design future triage policies and accompanying communication strategies.

The shared ethical framework to allocate scarce medical resources: a lesson from COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has helped to clarify the fair and equitable allocation of scarce medical resources, both within and among countries. The ethical allocation of such resources entails a three-step process: (1) elucidating the fundamental ethical values for allocation, (2) using these values to delineate priority tiers for scarce resources, and (3) implementing the prioritisation to faithfully realise the fundamental values. Myriad reports and assessments have elucidated five core substantive values for ethical allocation: maximising benefits and minimising harms, mitigating unfair disadvantage, equal moral concern, reciprocity, and instrumental value. These values are universal. None of the values are sufficient alone, and their relative weight and application will vary by context. In addition, there are procedural principles such as transparency, engagement, and evidence-responsiveness. Prioritising instrumental value and minimising harms during the COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread agreement on priority tiers to include health-care workers, first responders, people living in congregate housing, and people with an increased risk of death, such as older adults and individuals with medical conditions. However, the pandemic also revealed problems with the implementation of these values and priority tiers, such as allocation on the basis of population rather than COVID-19 burden, and passive allocation that exacerbated disparities by requiring recipients to spend time booking and travelling to appointments. This ethical framework should be the starting point for the allocation of scarce medical resources in future pandemics and other public health conditions. For instance, allocation of the new malaria vaccine among sub-Saharan African countries should be based not on reciprocity to countries that participated in research, but on maximally reducing serious illness and deaths, especially among infants and children.

Ethics of allocation of donor organs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is no widely accepted single ethical principle for the fair allocation of scarce donor organs for transplantation. Although most allocation systems use combinations of allocation principles, there is a particular tension between 'prioritizing the worst-off' and 'maximizing total benefits'. It is often suggested that empirical research on public preferences should help solve the dilemma between equity and efficiency in allocation policy-making.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review shows that the evidence on public preferences for allocation principles is limited, and that the normative role of public preferences in donor organ allocation policy making is unclear. The review seeks to clarify the ethical dilemma to the transplant community, and draws attention to recent attempts at balancing and rank-ordering of allocation principles.

SUMMARY

This review suggests that policy makers should make explicit the relative weights attributed to equity and efficiency considerations in allocation policies, and monitor the effects of policy changes on important ethics outcomes, including equitable access among patient groups. Also, it draws attention to wider justice issues associated not with the distribution of donor organs among patients on waiting lists, but with barriers in referral for transplant evaluation and disparities among patient groups in access to waiting lists.

Strategic planning for the optimal distribution of COVID-19 vaccines

This work presents a multi-objective optimization strategy for fair vaccine allocation through different fairness schemes. The proposed approach considers a diverse series of parameters related to different public health data and social behaviors that influence the correct distribution of vaccines, such as corruption and crime. Simultaneously, the formulation includes prioritizing those groups with the highest risk based on the epidemiological traffic light. Furthermore, the presented strategy involves different budget constraints that allow identifying trade-off solutions through Pareto fronts. Therefore, vaccine allocations are obtained by combining fairness concepts with multi-objective optimization. The applicability of the model is illustrated using the case study of Mexico. The solution to the proposed scenarios was carried out using different justice schemes and an economic objective function. The results show the compromises between a satisfaction index and costs, which are shown through Pareto optimal solutions that allow selecting the solutions that balance the objectives. The solutions provided by the social welfare scheme suggest a greater allocation of vaccines to those states with higher epidemiological risk, which may be helpful in the first stage of vaccination. On the other hand, the Rawlsian scheme provides more balanced solutions that can be useful in situations with lower rates of infection. Finally, the Nash scheme is the one that provides the most balanced solutions, favoring to a lesser extent the areas with the highest epidemiological risk, which may be useful in the later stages of vaccination.

Should patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3 receive higher priority for liver transplantation?

In this debate, the authors consider whether patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure grade 3 (ACLF-3) should receive higher liver transplant priority, with reference to the following clinical case: a 62-year-old male with a history of decompensated alcohol-associated cirrhosis, with recurrent ascites and hepatic encephalopathy, and metabolic comorbidities (type 2 diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension and a BMI of 31 kg/m²). A few days following evaluation for liver transplantation (LT), the patient was admitted to the intensive care unit and placed on mechanical ventilation for neurological failure, FiO₂ of 0.3 with a SpO₂ of 98%, and started on norepinephrine at 0.62 μg/kg/min. He had been abstinent since the diagnosis of cirrhosis a year prior. Laboratory results at admission were: leukocyte count 12.1 G/L, international normalised ratio 2.1, creatinine 2.4 mg/dl, sodium 133 mmol/L, total bilirubin 7 mg/dl, lactate 5.5 mmol/L, with a MELD-Na score of 31 and a CLIF-C ACLF score of 67. On the 7^th day after admission, the patient was placed on the LT waiting list. On the same day, he had massive variceal bleed with hypovolemic shock requiring terlipressin, transfusion of three red blood cell units, and endoscopic band ligation. On day 10, the patient was stabilised with a low dose of norepinephrine 0.03 μg/kg/min, with no new sepsis or bleeding. However, the patient was still intubated for grade 2 hepatic encephalopathy and on renal replacement therapy with a lactate level of 3.1 mmol/L. The patient is currently categorised as having ACLF-3, with five organ failures (liver, kidney, coagulation, circulation, and respiration). Based on the severity of his liver disease and multiorgan failure, the patient is at an exceedingly high risk of death without LT. Is it appropriate to perform LT in such a patient?

Medical capacity investment for epidemic disease: The effects of policymaker's confidence and public trust

Due to the server bed shortage, which has raised ethical dilemmas in the earliest days of the COVID-19 crisis, medical capacity investment has become a vital decision-making issue in the attempt to contain the epidemic. Furthermore, economic strength has failed to explain the significant performance difference across countries in combatting COVID-19. Unlike common diseases, epidemic diseases add substantial unpredictability, complexity, and uncertainty to decision-making. Knowledge miscalibration on epidemiological uncertainties by policymaker's over- and underconfidence can seriously impact policymaking. Ineffective risk communication may lead to conflicting and incoherent information transmission. As a result, public reactions and attitudes could be influenced by policymakers' confidence due to the level of public trust, which eventually affects the degree to which an epidemic spreads. To uncover the impacts of policymakers' confidence and public trust on the medical capacity investment, we establish epidemic diffusion models to characterize how transmission evolves with (and without) vaccination and frame the capacity investment problem as a newsvendor problem. Our results show that if the public fully trusts the public health experts, the policymaker's behavioral bias is always harmful, but its effect on cost increment is marginal. If a policymaker's behavior induces public reactions due to public trust, both the spread of the epidemic and the overall performance will be significantly affected, but such impacts are not always harmful. Decision bias may be beneficial when policymakers are pessimistic or highly overconfident. Having an opportunity to amend initially biased decisions can debias a particular topic but has a limited cost-saving effect.

Ethical analysis examining the prioritisation of living donor transplantation in times of healthcare rationing

The transplant community has faced unprecedented challenges balancing risks of performing living donor transplants during the COVID-19 pandemic with harms of temporarily suspending these procedures. Decisions regarding postponement of living donation stem from its designation as an elective procedure, this despite that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services categorise transplant procedures as tier 3b (high medical urgency-do not postpone). In times of severe resource constraints, health systems may be operating under crisis or contingency standards of care. In this manuscript, the United Network for Organ Sharing Ethics Workgroup explores prioritisation of living donation where health systems operate under contingency standards of care and provide a framework with recommendations to the transplant community on how to approach living donation in these circumstances.To guide the transplant community in future decisions, this analysis suggests that: (1) living donor transplants represent an important option for individuals with end-stage liver and kidney disease and should not be suspended uniformly under contingency standards, (2) exposure risk to SARS-CoV-2 should be balanced with other risks, such as exposure risks at dialysis centres. Because many of these risks are not quantifiable, donors and recipients should be included in discussions on what constitutes acceptable risk, (3) transplant hospitals should strive to maintain a critical transplant workforce and avoid diverting expertise, which could negatively impact patient preparedness for transplant, (4) transplant hospitals should consider implementing protocols to ensure early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections and discuss these measures with donors and recipients in a process of shared decision-making.

Cost-Effectiveness and the Avoidance of Discrimination in Healthcare: Can We Have Both?

Many ethical theorists believe that a given distribution of healthcare is morally justified only if (1) it is cost-effective and (2) it does not discriminate against older adults and disabled people. However, if (3) cost-effectiveness involves maximizing the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) added by a given unit of healthcare resource, or cost, it seems the pursuit of cost-effectiveness will inevitably discriminate against older adults and disabled patients. I show why this trilemma is harder to escape than some theorists think. We cannot avoid it by using age- or disability-weighted QALY scores, for example. I then explain why there is no sense of "discrimination" on which discrimination is both unjust, and thus something healthcare rationing must avoid, and something cost-effective healthcare rationing inevitably involves. I go on to argue that many of the reasons we have for not favoring rationing that maximizes QALYs outside the healthcare context apply in healthcare as well. Thus, claim (1) above is dubious.