Bioethics meets Ebola: exploring the moral landscape

Addressing Moral Injury in Emergency Medicine

BACKGROUND

Moral injury, which is described as the psychological distress that results from actions, or lack of them, that go against one's beliefs or values, has become front and center among issues facing the practice of emergency medicine. Although it predates the COVID-19 outbreak, the pandemic has played a significant role in the increased rate of burnout, and even suicide, among emergency physicians.

CASE REPORTS

This paper includes several clinical vignettes to highlight incidents that may occur in the emergency department (ED) when physicians experience violations of their moral codes, leading to distress and moral injury. These scenarios explore the conflicts posed between competing bioethical principles such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, end-of-life decision-making, medical futility, respect for self-determination (autonomy), resource scarcity and triage, duty to care, and physician impairment.

DISCUSSION

There are significant similarities between moral injury and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with some authors describing moral injury as a subset of PTSD. We explore these commonalities to provide coping mechanisms and mitigation strategies for those suffering from moral injury.

CONCLUSION

Physicians experiencing moral injury may benefit from the many available evidence-based treatments for PTSD to identify and manage moral injury and to support patient care and personal well-being.

Lessons From Italy's and Sweden's Policies in Fighting COVID-19: The Contribution of Biomedical and Social Competences

We start (section The COVID-19 Pandemic and Italy's Response to It) by focusing on Italy's “tough” response to COVID-19 pandemic, which included total lockdown with very limited possibility of movement for over 60 million individuals. We analyse (section Sweden's Softer Approach) Sweden's softer approach, which is based on relatively lax measures and tends to safeguard fundamental constitutional rights. We problematise (section General Disagreement Among Experts: A Pressing Epistemic Problem) around the stalemate that arises as a consequence of the implementation of these different approaches, both epistemically grounded and equally justified, in the face of an unknown virus, in society. We point out that in some cases, like the one we discuss here, the epistemic justification that underlies scientific expertise is not enough to direct public debates and that politicians shouldn't exclusively focus on it. We claim that, especially in situations of emergency when experts disagree, decision makers ought to promote broad discussions, with attention to public reason as well as to constitutional rights, in the attempt to find a shared procedural and democratic agreement on how to act. On these grounds (section The Need of More Public Discourse in Fighting Covid-19) we call for an increase role of different types of expertise in public debates thus for the inclusion of ethicists, bioethicists, economists, psychologists, moral and legal philosophers in any scientific committee responsible for taking important decisions for public health, especially during situations like pandemics. Likewise, in the interest of public reason and representativeness, we also claim that it may be fruitful to bring in non-experts, or experts whose expertise is not based solely on “epistemic status,” but rather on either experience or political advocacy, of either the homeless, the immigrant, or other disenfranchised groups. This, in expanding the epistemic-expert pool, may also make it “more representative of society as a whole.”

Ebola, quarantine, and the need for a new ethical framework

Quarantine is a broad public health strategy used to control infectious diseases outbreaks. An arguably most aggressive public health intervention, quarantine limits the asymptomatic individuals’ liberty and can result in significant harm. Quarantine was used in an attempt to control several Ebola outbreaks during the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014. The most concerning quarantine intervention occurred at West Point, a slum of 75,000 people in the capital Liberian capital, Monrovia. This work critically reviews present ethical frameworks in public health for the examination of outbreaks in West Africa. This work utilizes the nine public health ethical principles described by Kerridge, Lowe and Stewart to argue that the quarantine at West Point was not ethically justified; and, it concludes that a new ethical framework for quarantine is required to address future outbreaks in the West African context.

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) and epidemic response in low and middle income countries

The recent Ebola and Zika virus epidemics in some parts of Africa and Asia have showcased the porosity in disaster preparedness and response, not only in the affected countries, but on a global scale. For the Ebola epidemic, scientifically robust research was started late during the course of the epidemic, with waste of resources and lost research opportunities. Research Ethics Committees have a significant role to play with regards to epidemic response for the future. This paper presents key challenges and opportunities for ethics review during emergencies, specifically for low and middle income countries. There is no better moment to test the efficacy and safety of drugs or vaccines for infected, or at risk populations than during the disaster itself. The main mantras that form the back bone of research ethics review (Helsinki Declaration, the CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, WHO and the ICH guidelines for Good Clinical Practice) are increasingly showing their limitations. Most protocols are generally from developed countries where the funding originates. Not only is the direct transposition to Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) settings inappropriate on its own, also, using such guidelines in times of public health disasters might be time consuming, and might also lead to wastage of research opportunities, especially when sociocultural peculiarities, and anthropological research arms are completely excluded or avoided within the care and research packages. Governments should include RECs as key members during the elaboration, and daily functioning of their national public emergency response packages. Developing simple research ethics review guidelines, involvement of health care staff in ethics training, community mobilization, and incorporation of anthropological research during the medical response, research and communication phases, are imperatives in epidemic response.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices among Members of Households Actively Monitored or Quarantined to Prevent Transmission of Ebola Virus Disease - Margibi County, Liberia: February-March 2015

BACKGROUND

In early 2015, a patient from a cluster of cases of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in Monrovia, Liberia traveled to a rural village in Margibi County, potentially exposing numerous persons. The patient died in the village and post-mortem testing confirmed Ebola Virus infection. Problem The Margibi County Health Team (CHT; Kakata, Margibi, Liberia) needed to prevent further transmission of EVD within and outside of the affected villages, and they needed to better understand the factors that support or impede compliance with measures to stop the spread of EVD.

METHODS

In February-March 2015, the Margibi CHT instituted a 21-day quarantine and active monitoring for two villages where the patient had contact with numerous residents, and a 21-day active monitoring for five other villages where the patient had possible contact with an unknown number of persons. One contact developed EVD and quarantine was extended an additional 12 days in one village. In April 2015, the Margibi CHT conducted a household-based EVD knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) survey of the seven villages. From April 24-29, 2015, interview teams approached every household in the seven villages and collected information on demographics, knowledge of EVD, attitudes about quarantine to prevent the spread of EVD, and their quarantine experiences and practices. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen interviews were conducted, representing the majority of the households in the seven villages. Most (99%) correctly identified touching an infected person's body fluids and contact with the body of someone who has died from EVD as transmission routes. However, interviewees sometimes incorrectly identified mosquito bites (58%) and airborne spread (32%) as routes of EVD transmission, and 72% incorrectly identified the longest EVD incubation period as ≤seven days. Eight of 16 households in the two quarantined villages (50%) reported times when there was not enough water or food during quarantine. Nine of 16 (56%) reported that a household member had illnesses or injuries during quarantine; of these, all (100%) obtained care from a clinic, hospital, or Ebola treatment unit (ETU).

CONCLUSION

Residents' knowledge of EVD transmission routes and incubation period were suboptimal. Public health authorities should consider assessing residents' understanding of Ebola transmission routes and effectively educate them to ensure correct understanding. Quarantined residents should be provided with sufficient food, water, and access to medical care. Wilken JA , Pordell P , Goode B , Jarteh R , Miller Z , Saygar BG Sr. , Maximore L , Borbor WM , Carmue M , Walker GW , Yeiah A . Knowledge, attitudes, and practices among members of households actively monitored or quarantined to prevent transmission of Ebola Virus Disease - Margibi County, Liberia: February-March 2015. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(6):673-678.