The Troubling Trichotomy 10 Years Later: Where Are We Now?

Ethical Framework for Nutrition Support Resource Allocation During Shortages: Lessons From COVID-19

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has impacted all aspects of our population. The “Troubling Trichotomy” of what can be done technologically, what should be done ethically, and what must be done legally is a reality during these unusual circumstances. Recent ethical considerations regarding allocation of scarce resources, such as mechanical ventilators, have been proposed. These can apply to other disciplines such as nutrition support, although decisions regarding nutrition support have a diminished potential for devastating outcomes. The principal values and goals leading to an ethical framework for a uniform, fair, and objective approach are reviewed in this article, with a focus on nutrition support. Some historical aspects of shortages in nutrition supplies and products during normal circumstances, as well as others during national crises, are outlined. The development and implementation of protocols using a scoring system seems best addressed by multidisciplinary ethics and triage committees with synergistic but disparate functions. Triage committees should alleviate the burdens of unilateral decisions by the healthcare team caring for patients. The treating team should make every attempt to have patients and the public at large update or execute/develop advance directives. Legal considerations, as the third component of the Troubling Trichotomy, are of some concern when rationing care. The likelihood that criminal or civil charges could be brought against individual healthcare professionals or institutions can be minimized, if fair protocols are uniformly applied and deliberations well documented.

Have the Answers to Common Legal Questions Concerning Nutrition Support Changed Over the Past Decade? 10 Questions for 10 Years

Clinical nutrition specialists (CNSs) are often confronted with technological, ethical, and legal questions, that is, what can be done technologically, what should be done ethically, and what must be done legally, which conflict at times. The conflict represents a "troubling trichotomy" as discussed in the lead article of this issue of Nutrition in Clinical Practice (NCP). During Clinical Nutrition Week in 2006, a symposium covering these 3 topics was presented, and later that year, an article covering the same topic was published in NCP In this article, we revisit several legal questions/issues that were raised 10 years ago and discuss current answers and approaches. Some of the answers remain unchanged. Other answers have been modified by additional legislation, court decisions, or regulations. In addition, new questions/issues have arisen. Some of the most common questions regarding nutrition support involve the following: liability, informed consent, medical decisional incapacity vs legal competence, advance directive specificity, surrogate decision making, physician orders for life-sustaining treatment and electronic medical orders for life-sustaining treatment, legal definition of death, patient vs family decision making, the noncompliant patient, and elder abuse obligations. In the current healthcare environment, these questions and issues are best addressed via a transdisciplinary team that focuses on function rather than form. The CNS can play a pivotal role in dealing with these challenges by applying the acronym ACT: being Accountable and Communicating with all stakeholders while actively participating as an integral part of the transdisciplinary Team.