What to Do When There Aren't Enough Beds in the PICU

An Ethics of Justice in Elderly Care: Ageism and the Covid-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

The study looks into the condition of elderly Covid-19 patients regarding the kind of attention they received during the pandemic given the scarcity of medical resouces in the countries mentioned in this investigation. In this case, we apply the bioethical principle of justice on the age-based criteria in determining which patient must receive treatment The argument is that the same is a form of discimination against the elderly.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to emphasize that the age-based criteria in deciding whether to treat elderly Covid-19 patients or not is violative of the bioethical principle of justice since it discriminates against them.

METHOD

This study uses the interpretive method. The authors analyzed the literature and the arguments pertaining to the issue of ageism at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic. We mentioned the countries where the issue of prioritization was a big concern. The qualitative analysis in this paper is meant to respond to such medical dilemma.

ANALYSIS

In our analysis, we determined that when age is used as a criterion, it violates the bioethical principle of justice. The principle is meant to ensure that physicians are fair in dealing with patients. Using age in deciding whether a life is worth saving or not is a prejudice against old people who require care and attention.

DISCUSSION

Medical doctors must treat patients equally and without bias. The challenge, however, is that due to the unprecedented nature of the pandemic, a triage is put in place to be able to manage the overwhelming influx of Covid-19 patients. Some age-based medical treatment criteria that recommend age-based cutoffs for specific treatments are morally untenable. This is because the same is bereft of any acceptable justification that warrants the judgment that the elderly must have less priority when medical resources are scarce.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, doctors must not discriminate patients on the basis of age. All lives are equal in moral worth. We argue that governments must promulgate non-discriminatory policies when it comes to medical treatment during a global public health emergency.

A world away and here at home: a prioritisation framework for US international patient programmes

Programmes serving international patients are increasingly common throughout the USA. These programmes aim to expand access to resources and clinical expertise not readily available in the requesting patients' home country. However, they exist within the US healthcare system where domestic healthcare needs are unmet for many children. Focusing our analysis on US children's hospitals that have a societal mandate to provide medical care to a defined geographic population while simultaneously offering highly specialised healthcare services for the general population, we assume that, given their mandate, priority will be given to patients within their catchment area over other patients. We argue that beyond prioritising patients within their region and addressing inequities within US healthcare, US institutions should also provide care to children from countries where access to vital medical services is unavailable or deficient. In the paper, we raise and attempt to answer the following: (1) Do paediatric healthcare institutions have a duty to care for all children in need irrespective of their place of residence, including international patients? (2) If there is such a duty, how should this general duty be balanced against the special duty to serve children within a defined geographical area to which an institution is committed, when resources are strained? (3) Finally, how are institutional obligations manifest in paradigm cases involving international patients? We start with cases, evaluating clinical and contextual features as they inform the strength of ethical claim and priority for access. We then proceed to develop a general prioritisation framework based on them.

Is this as good as it gets? Implications of an asymptotic mortality decline and approaching the nadir in pediatric intensive care

Despite advances in medicine, some children will always die; a decline in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) mortality to zero will never be achieved. The mortality decline is correspondingly asymptotic, yet we remain preoccupied with mortality outcomes. Are we at the nadir, and are we, thus, as good as we can get? And what should we focus to benchmark our units, if not mortality? In the face of changing case-mix and rising complexity, dramatic reductions in PICU mortality have been observed globally. At the same time, survivors have increasing disability, and deaths are often characterized by intensive life-sustaining therapies preceded by prolonged admissions, emphasizing the need to consider alternate outcome measures to evaluate our successes and failures. What are the costs and implications of reaching this nadir in mortality outcomes? We highlight the failings of our fixation with survival and an imperative to consider alternative outcomes in our PICUs, including the costs for both patients that survive and die, their families, healthcare providers, and society including perspectives in low resource settings. We describe the implications for benchmarking, research, and training the next generation of providers.Conlusion: Although survival remains a highly relevant metric, as PICUs continue to strive for clinical excellence, pushing boundaries in research and innovation, with endeavors in safety, quality, and high-reliability systems, we must prioritize outcomes beyond mortality, evaluate "costs" beyond economics, and find novel ways to improve the care we provide to all of our pediatric patients and their families. What is Known: • The fall in PICU mortality is asymptotic, and a decline to zero is not achievable. Approaching the nadir, we challenge readers to consider implications of focusing on medical and technological advances with survival as the sole outcome of interest. What is New: • Our fixation with survival has costs for patients, families, staff, and society. In the changing PICU landscape, we advocate to pivot towards alternate outcome metrics. • By considering the implications for benchmarking, research, and training, we may better care for patients and families, educate trainees, and expand what it means to succeed in the PICU.

Balancing Patient and Societal Interests in Decisions About Potentially Life-Sustaining Treatment : An Australian Policy Analysis

BACKGROUND

This paper investigates the content of Australian policies that address withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment to analyse the guidance they provide to doctors about the allocation of resources.

METHODS

All publicly available non-institutional policies on withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment were identified, including codes of conduct and government and professional organization guidelines. The policies that referred to resource allocation were isolated and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. Eight Australian policies addressed both withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and resource allocation.

RESULTS

Four resource-related themes were identified: (1) doctors' ethical duties to consider resource allocation; (2) balancing ethical obligations to patient and society; (3) fair process and transparent resource allocation; and (4) legal guidance on distributive justice as a rationale to limit life-sustaining treatment.

CONCLUSION

Of the policies that addressed resource allocation, this review found broad agreement about the existence of doctors' duties to consider the stewardship of scarce resources in decision-making. However, there was disparity in the guidance about how to reconcile competing duties to patient and society. There is a need to better address the difficult and confronting issue of the role of scarce resources in decisions about life-sustaining treatment.

AAN position statement: The COVID-19 pandemic and the ethical duties of the neurologist

Patients, clinicians, and hospitals have undergone monumental changes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This crisis has forced us to consider the obligations that we neurologists have to our individual patients as well as the greater community. By returning to our fundamental understanding of these duties, we can ensure that we are providing the most ethically appropriate contingency and crisis care possible. We recommend specific adaptations to both the inpatient and outpatient settings, as well as changes to medical and trainee education. Furthermore, we explore the daunting but potentially necessary implementation of scare resource allocation protocols. As the pandemic evolves, we will need to adapt continuously to these rapidly changing circumstances and consider both national and regional standards and variation.

Doctors' perceptions of how resource limitations relate to futility in end-of-life decision making: a qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To increase knowledge of how doctors perceive futile treatments and scarcity of resources at the end of life. In particular, their perceptions about whether and how resource limitations influence end-of-life decision making. This study builds on previous work that found some doctors include resource limitations in their understanding of the concept of futility.

SETTING

Three tertiary hospitals in metropolitan Brisbane, Australia.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using in-depth, semistructured, face-to-face interviews. Ninety-six doctors were interviewed in 11 medical specialties. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Doctors' perceptions of whether resource limitations were relevant to their practice varied, and doctors were more comfortable with explicit rather than implicit rationing. Several doctors incorporated resource limitations into their definition of futility. For some, availability of resources was one factor of many in assessing futility, secondary to patient considerations, but a few doctors indicated that the concept of futility concealed rationing. Doctors experienced moral distress due to the resource implications of providing futile treatment and the lack of administrative supports for bedside rationing.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors' ability to distinguish between futility and rationing would be enhanced through regulatory support for explicit rationing and strategies to support doctors' role in rationing at the bedside. Medical policies should address the distinction between resource limitations and futility to promote legitimacy in end-of-life decision making.

"We Can Do Anything but We Can't Do Everything": Exploring the Perceived Impact of International Pediatric Programs on U.S. PICUs

Purpose: Every year, an increasing number of international patients seek medical care in the United States (U.S.), yet little is known about their impact. Based on single institution experiences, we wanted to explore the perceived impact of international pediatric patients on large academic U.S. pediatric intensive care units (PICUs), as they are already taxed systems. Methods: To explore current perceptions, seven geographically diverse institutions who advertise care for international patients on their websites and have ≥24 PICU beds were identified after IRB approval was obtained. We consented and interviewed PICU division chiefs or medical directors from each institution regarding their demographics and international patients. Common themes were identified. Results: Participating institutions were diverse in geographic location, census, and resource allocation strategies. Five of the seven institutions reported the presence of a formal international patient program. Four of those five reported an increase in international patients receiving PICU care over the past 5 years. International patients sought complex surgeries, advanced cancer treatments and metabolic/genetic evaluations. We identified three primary domains that require further exploration and research: (1) cultural and language differences leading to barriers in providing optimal care to international patients (2) institutional financial considerations, and (3) perceived positive and negative impact on the care of local/domestic patient populations. Conclusions: The presence of international programs raises a number of important ethical questions, including whether clinicians have a greater duty to serve residents of the local community as opposed to international patients when resources are limited. Further exploration is warranted.