The duty to care in a pandemic

Beyond Duty: Medical "Heroes" and the COVID-19 Pandemic

When infectious disease outbreaks strike, health facilities acquire labels such as "war zones" and "battlefields" and healthcare professionals become "heroes" on the "front line." But unlike soldiers, healthcare professionals often take on these dangerous roles without any prior intention or explicit expectation that their work will place them in grave personal danger. This inevitably raises questions about their role-related obligations and whether they should be free to choose not to endanger themselves. In this article, I argue that it is helpful to view this situation not only through the lens of "professional duty" but also through the lens of "role-related conflicts." Doing so has the advantage of avoiding exceptionalism and allowing us to draw lessons not only from previous epidemics but also from a wide range of far more common role-related dilemmas in healthcare.

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

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Patient experience in the emergency department: inconsistencies in the ethic and duty of care

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To understand how people who present on multiple occasions to the emergency department experience their health professionals' moral comportment (ethic of care and duty of care); and to understand the consequences of this for 'people who present on multiple occasions' ongoing choices in care.

BACKGROUND

People (n = 34) with chronic illness who had multiple presentations were interviewed about the role that emergency departments played within their lives and health-illness journey. Unprompted, all participants shared views about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the care they received from the health professionals in the emergency departments they had attended. These responses raised the imperative for specific analysis of the data regarding the need for and experience of an ethic of care.

DESIGN

Qualitative description of interview data (stage 3 of a multimethod study).

METHODS

The methods included further analysis of existing interviews, exploration of relevant literature, use of Tronto's ethic of care as a theoretical framework for analysis, thematic analysis of people who present on multiple occasions' texts and explication of health professionals' moral positions in relation to present on multiple occasions' experiences.

RESULTS

Four moral comportment positions attributed by the people who present on multiple occasions to the health professionals in emergency department were identified: 'sustained and enmeshed ethic and duty of care', 'consistent duty of care', 'interrupted or mixed duty and ethic of care', and 'care in breach of both the ethic and duty of care'.

CONCLUSIONS

People who present on multiple occasions are an important group of consumers who attend the emergency department. Tronto's phases/moral elements in an ethic of care are useful as a framework for coding qualitative texts. Investigation into the bases, outcomes and contextual circumstances that stimulate the different modes of moral comportment is needed.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Findings carry implications for emergency department care of people who present on multiple occasions and for emergency department health professionals to increase awareness of their moral comportment in care.

'If you have a soul, you will volunteer at once': gendered expectations of duty to care during pandemics

Duty to care has been identified as a pressing ethical issue in contemporary discussions of pandemic preparedness; however, nuanced discussions of this complicated issue are relatively limited. This article presents historical data from the experience of the 1918 influenza pandemic in Brantford, Ontario in Canada, demonstrating that, in the face of an actual pandemic, the particular construction of duty to care as both moral and gendered meant that women were placed at a greater personal risk during this time. Given that women still dominate the front lines of healthcare work, we argue that it is critical for current stakeholders to reflect on how these historical patterns may be replicated in contemporary pandemic planning and response.

Canadian survey on pandemic flu preparations

Background

The management of pandemic influenza creates public health challenges.

An ethical framework, 'Stand on Guard for Thee: ethical considerations in pandemic influenza preparedness' that served as a template for the World Health Organization's global consultation on pandemic planning, was transformed into a survey administered to a random sample of 500 Canadians to obtain opinions on key ethical issues in pandemic preparedness planning.

Methods

All framework authors and additional investigators created items that were pilot-tested with volunteers of both sexes and all socioeconomic strata. Surveys were telephone administered with random sampling achieved via random digit dialing (RDD). Eligible participants were adults, 18 years or older, with per province stratification equaling provincial percent of national population. Descriptive results were tabulated and logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether demographic factors were significantly associated with outcomes.

Results

5464 calls identified 559 eligible participants of whom 88.5% completed surveys. Over 90% of subjects agreed the most important goal of pandemic influenza preparations was saving lives, with 41% endorsing saving lives solely in Canada and 50% endorsing saving lives globally as the highest priority. Older age (OR = 8.51, p < 0.05) and current employment (OR = 9.48, p < 0.05) were associated with an endorsement of saving lives globally as highest priority. About 90% of respondents supported the obligation of health care workers to report to work and face influenza pandemic risks excepting those with a serious health condition that increased risks. Over 84% supported the government's provision of disability insurance and death benefits for health care workers facing elevated risk. Strong majorities favored stocking adequate protective antiviral dosages for all Canadians (92%) and, if effective, influenza vaccinations (95%). Over 70% agreed Canada should provide international assistance to poorer countries for pandemic preparation, even if resources for Canadians were reduced. While 92% of this group, believed provision should be 7 to 10% of all resources generated, 43% believed the provision should be greater than 10%.

Conclusions

Results suggest trust in public health officials to make difficult decisions, providing emphasis on reciprocity and respect for individual rights.

Avian flu pandemic - flight of the healthcare worker?

BACKGROUND

One of the ethical issues identified in response to a possible pandemic is healthcare workers' duty to provide care during a communicable disease outbreak. Healthcare employees may be subject to a variety of work obligations under such conditions. Questions of duty to treat remain controversial, and debate continues as to the ethical articulation of a duty to treat. This study aimed to investigate opinions from healthcare workers themselves on the perceived duty to treat, and how they might respond to a severe avian flu pandemic.

METHODS

Using system-wide e-mail, we surveyed employees at our rural tertiary/quaternary care health system regarding their knowledge of our institution's pandemic planning policy and their willingness to work in the event of a virulent avian pandemic.

RESULTS

Results (N=908) show that employees felt a responsibility for"duty to care." Over 60% disagreed that it was ethical to abandon the workplace during a pandemic. However, opinions also stated that employees wanted autonomy to decide whether or not to work (65%). When asked about volunteering, 79% would agree to volunteer, given some incentives and protective options, the most salient being protective equipment (with relative training for use) and infectious disease training.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research demonstrated that the healthcare workers a tour institution voiced an earnest willingness to work in the event of an avian flu pandemic, if provided with the necessary input, protections and tools, and education. The use of an electronic methodology for dissemination of surveys allowed the low-cost solicitation of information from a vast proportion of the workforce with ease, providing the institutional ethics committee with the empirical data needed to articulate more meaningful,thoughtful, and robust suggestions for ethical pandemic planning.