Should Institutions Disclose the Names of Employees with Covid-19?

Prestigious University is a large, private educational institution with a medical school, a university hospital, a law school, and graduate and undergraduate colleges all on a single campus. In the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, students were told during spring break to return to campus only briefly to retrieve their belongings. Classes then went online. On March 23, 2020, the faculty, students, and staff were emailed the following by the university's director of infection control and public health:

We have become aware that a Prestigious University staff member has tested positive for the virus that causes Covid-19. The individual, who was last on campus on March 16, is now in isolation at their permanent residence and is doing well clinically. The university has already identified those members of our community who may have been in close contact with this individual, and we are working to notify them. Further, this individual's local health department has a protocol for identifying people who have been in direct contact with anyone testing positive for Covid-19 (such as this Prestigious University staff member) so that they can self-quarantine and watch for COVID-19 symptoms for a period of 14 days from their last contact with the infected individual.

A professor in the Philosophy Department has asked the ethicists at the medical school whether such contact tracing suffices. “Don't the members of the community deserve to know who this is? Isn't there a mandate to identify this person in order to maximize public health benefits and slow the spread of this deadly virus?”     

Responding to Covid-19: How to Navigate a Public Health Emergency Legally and Ethically

Few novel or emerging infectious diseases have posed such vital ethical challenges so quickly and dramatically as the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. The World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern and recently classified Covid-19 as a worldwide pandemic. As of this writing, the epidemic has not yet peaked in the United States, but community transmission is widespread. President Trump declared a national emergency as fifty governors declared state emergencies. In the coming weeks, hospitals will become overrun, stretched to their capacities. When the health system becomes stretched beyond capacity, how can we ethically allocate scarce health goods and services? How can we ensure that marginalized populations can access the care they need? What ethical duties do we owe to vulnerable people separated from their families and communities? And how do we ethically and legally balance public health with civil liberties?     

Vaccine Rationing and the Urgency of Social Justice in the Covid-19 Response

The Covid-19 pandemic needs to be considered from two perspectives simultaneously. First, there are questions about which policies are most effective and fair in the here and now, as the pandemic unfolds. These polices concern, for example, who should receive priority in being tested, how to implement contact tracing, or how to decide who should get ventilators or vaccines when not all can. Second, it is imperative to anticipate the medium- and longer-term consequences that these policies have. The case of vaccine rationing is particularly instructive. Ethical, epidemiological, and economic reasons demand that rationing approaches give priority to groups who have been structurally and historically disadvantaged, even if this means that overall life years gained may be lower.     

Scarcity in the Covid-19 Pandemic

As we write, U.S. cities and states with extensive community transmission of Covid-19 are in harm's way—not only because of the disease itself but also because of prior and current failures to act. During the 2009 influenza pandemic, public health agencies and hospitals developed but never adequately implemented preparedness plans. Focused on efficiency in a competitive market, health systems had few incentives to maintain stockpiles of essential medical equipment. Just-in-time economic models resulted in storage of only those supplies needed then. At the same time, global purchasing in search of lower prices reduced the number of U.S. suppliers, with hospitals dependent on foreign companies. There is still a possibility that the pandemic will be manageably bad rather than unmanageably catastrophic in this country. Immediate, powerful, and sustained federal action could make the difference.     

Dying during Covid-19

I had been on the phone with Madeleine's mother for fifteen minutes, and she had sobbed throughout. She pleaded with me, “You won't even let our family visit her together. If you really want to help my daughter, you will let us stay with her.” Madeleine, who was twenty-four years old, was dying of end-stage acute myeloid leukemia and was intubated in one of our intensive care units. Her intensivist had requested a clinical ethics consultation for potentially inappropriate medical treatment—in my world of clinical ethics consultation, routine stuff. Except that, in March 2020, nothing was routine anymore. The Covid-19 pandemic calls for creative thinking about ad hoc and post hoc bereavement efforts, and it may result in efforts to revise existing accounts of what constitutes a good death in order to accommodate patients’ and families’ experiences at the end of life during a pandemic.     

All People

In early March 2020, the March-April Hastings Center Report was very nearly assembled and contained nothing about Covid-19, which was still just beginning to make itself publicly known in the United States. Two weeks later, the editorial line-up was undergoing a remix, and essays that lay out sweeping agendas for the response to the worldwide crisis were in preparation. The central theme in the agenda that Lawrence O. Gostin and colleagues develop is that the pandemic requires a sharp break from usual ethical norms yet simultaneously demands a return to core ethical commitments. A similar theme is sounded by Mildred Z. Solomon and colleagues in a commentary calling for federal actions to keep the health care system functioning. Other essays in the issue take up an assortment of topical issues—including international patient dumping—that were simmering along prior to the pandemic, and the two articles take up foundational questions about the nature of moral reasoning.     

Patients Left Behind: Ethical Challenges in Caring for Indirect Victims of the Covid-19 Pandemic

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, health care systems worldwide canceled or delayed elective surgeries, outpatient procedures, and clinic appointments. Although such measures may have been necessary to preserve medical resources and to prevent potential exposures early in the pandemic, moving forward, the indirect effects of such an extensive medical shutdown must not outweigh the direct harms of Covid-19. In this essay, we argue for the reopening of evidence-based health care with assurance provided to patients about the safety and necessity of high-value vaccinations, screenings, therapeutics, and procedures. To ensure that virtually all non-Covid-related services do not come to a halt again, health care systems and physician practices must preemptively increase their capacity, secure adequate personal protective equipment to safeguard health care personnel, and develop a measured approach to reclosing such routine health care, should it become necessary in the future.     

Covid-19: Exposing the Lack of Evidence-Based Practice in Medicine

The Covid-19 pandemic has altered the shape of medicine, making in-person interactions risky for both patients and health care workers. Now, before scheduling in-person appointments or procedures, physicians are forced to reconsider if they are truly necessary. The pandemic has thus thrown into relief the difference between evidence-based medical care and traditional aspects of care that lack a strong evidentiary component. In this essay, we demonstrate how this has played out in prenatal care, as well as in other aspects of medical care, during the pandemic. The extent to which these changes will persist beyond the most emergent phases of the pandemic is not clear, though insurance reimbursement practices and patient expectations will be determining factors. One thing, however, is certain: the longer the pandemic continues, the more difficult it will be for providers and patients to return to pre-Covid norms.     

Distressed Work: Chronic Imperatives and Distress in Covid-19 Critical Care

This ethnographic study introduces the term “distressed work” to describe the emergence of chronic frictions between moral imperatives for health care workers to keep working and the dramatic increase in distress during the Covid-19 pandemic. Interviews and observant participation conducted in a hospital intensive care unit during the Covid-19 pandemic reveal how health care workers connected job duties with extraordinary emotional, physical, and moral burdens. We explore tensions between perceived obligations of health care professionals and the structural contexts of work. Key findings cluster around the moral imperatives of health care work and the distress that work engendered as work spaces, senses of vocation, patient and family interactions, and end-of-life care shifted. While the danger of working beyond limits has long been an ordinary feature of health care work, it has now become a chronic crisis. Assessing this problem in terms of distressed work and its structural contexts can better address effective, worker-informed responses to current health care labor dilemmas.     

Global Disparity and Solidarity in a Pandemic

While the domestic effect of structural racism and other social vulnerabilities on Covid-19 mortality in the United States has received some attention, there has been much less discussion (with some notable exceptions) of how structural global inequalities will further exacerbate Covid-related health disparity across the world. This may be partially due to the delayed availability of accurate and comparable data from overwhelmed systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. However, early methods to procure and develop treatments and vaccines by some high-income countries reflect ongoing protectionist and nationalistic attitudes that can systemically exclude access for people in regions with weaker health systems. What's needed is a global coordinated effort, based on the principle of solidarity, to foster equitable health care access.     

Covid-19: Ethical Challenges for Nurses

The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted many of the difficult ethical issues that health care professionals confront in caring for patients and families. The decisions such workers face on the front lines are fraught with uncertainty for all stakeholders. Our focus is on the implications for nurses, who are the largest global health care workforce but whose perspectives are not always fully considered. This essay discusses three overarching ethical issues that create a myriad of concerns and will likely affect nurses globally in unique ways: the safety of nurses, patients, colleagues, and families; the allocation of scarce resources; and the changing nature of nurses’ relationships with patients and families. We urge policy-makers to ensure that nurses’ voices and perspectives are integrated into both local and global decision-making so as to minimize the structural injustices many nurses have faced to date. Finally, we urge nurses to seek sources of support throughout this pandemic.     

Digital Contact Tracing,Privacy, and Public Health

Digital contact tracing, in combination with widespread testing, has been a focal point for many plans to “reopen” economies while containing the spread of Covid-19. Most digital contact tracing projects in the United States and Europe have prioritized privacy protections in the form of local storage of data on smartphones and the deidentification of information. However, in the prioritization of privacy in this narrow form, there is not sufficient attention given to weighing ethical trade-offs within the context of a public health pandemic or to the need to evaluate safety and effectiveness of software-based technology applied to public health.     

Experiencing Community in a Covid Surge

As I organize a pile of ethics consult chart notes in New York City in mid-April 2020, I look at the ten cases that I have co-consulted on recently. Nine of the patients were found to be Covid positive. The reasons for the consults are mostly familiar—surrogate decision-making, informed refusal of treatment, goals of care, defining futility. But the context is unfamiliar and unsettling. Bioethicists are in pandemic mode, dusting off and revising triage plans. Patients and potential patients are fearful—of the disease itself and of the amplification of health disparities and inequities. There is much to contemplate, but as I go through my cases, I worry about disability, about biases and racist stereotypes. In this pandemic, historically marginalized communities are at risk of further disenfranchisement.     

A Pandemic Diary

In mid-March 2020, The Hastings Center pivoted to work on public health and clinical ethics questions sparked by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Center created a hub page on our website for ethics resources on the pandemic and published the first in a series of Covid-19 ethics frameworks for health care providers. The pandemic has illuminated staggering health inequities, particularly for people of color, prompting the Center to launch a series of webinars called Securing Health in a Troubled Time: Equity, Ethics, & the Common Good.     

62,406 and Counting

What will we remember, as scholars, practitioners, policy-makers, educators, and citizens, about this acute phase of the catastrophe in the United States? The shocking federal failure concerning testing? That the first shortage was not of ventilators but protective gear? How infection rates and deaths in communities of color, immigrant neighborhoods, and nursing homes mercilessly exposed the relationship between social inequalities and health inequities? I hope we will remember that the field of bioethics did good work under pressure, learned that public health ethics and global health ethics are about securing the conditions for decent lives and decent work as well as saving lives, and committed ourselves to progress on the problem of inequality.     

Older Adults and Covid-19: The Most Vulnerable,the Hardest Hit

Older adults in the United States have been the age group hardest hit by the Covid pandemic. They have suffered a disproportionate number of deaths; Covid patients eighty years or older on ventilators had fatality rates higher than 90 percent. How could we have better protected older adults? Both the popular press and government entities blamed nursing homes, labeling them “snake pits” and imposing harsh fines and arduous new regulations. We argue that this approach is unlikely to improve protections for older adults. Rather than focusing exclusively on acute and critical resources, including ventilators, a plan that respected the best interests of older adults would have also supported nursing homes, a critical part of the health care system. Better access to protective equipment for staff members, early testing of staff members and patients, and enhanced means of communication with families were what was needed. These preventive measures would have offered greater benefit to the oldest members of our population than the exclusive focus on acute care.     

Preparedness of medical education in China: Lessons from the COVID-19 outbreak

Abstract

The COVID-19 outbreak can be seen as a ‘big test’ for China; a summative assessment of its preparedness on multiple fronts, including medical education. Being intimately involved in the coordinated response, the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University has been a first-hand witness to the strengths and weaknesses of the current medical education system in China. On the one hand, we believe that the distinguished contributions in disease containment efforts by healthcare professionals indicated that our medical education system has achieved its intended outcomes and is socially accountable. On the other hand, we have also identified three major issues that need to be addressed from an educational standpoint: insufficient emphasis on public health emergency preparedness; unsophisticated mechanisms for interdisciplinary cooperation; and inadequate guidance in medical ethics. Whilst these reflections might be seen in its summative form, we would suggest changing it to that of a formative process, where we learn from our assessment through observation and feedback of the gaps, upon which improvement of our present situation can be made. We hope that these lessons may be helpful to our colleagues in the rest of China and around the world, who are engaged in medical educational reform.     

Between Crisis and Convention: How Should We Address Contingency?

The Covid-19 pandemic has brought about renewed conversation about equality and equity in the distribution of medical resources. Much of the recent conversation has focused on creating and implementing policies in times of crisis when resources are exhausted. Depending on how the pandemic develops, some communities may implement crisis measures, but many health care facilities are currently experiencing shortages of staff and materials even if the facilities have not implemented crisis standards. There is a need for shared conversation about equality and equity in these times of contingency between conventional and crisis medicine. To respond well to these challenges, I recommend that institutions rely on policy, professional education, and ethics consultation. As is the case with crisis policies, creating contingency policies requires that health care professionals decide on how, specifically, to achieve equity. A policy is only as effective as its implementation; therefore, institutions should invest in context-specific education on contingency policies. Finally, ethics consultation should be available for questions that contingency policies cannot address.     

Getting to the Truth: Ethics,Trust, and Triage in the United States versus Europe during the Covid‐19 Pandemic

Ethical issues around triage have been at the forefront of debates during the Covid‐19 pandemic. This essay compares both discussion and guidelines around triage and the reality of what happened in the United States and in Europe, both in anticipation of and during the first wave of the pandemic. Why did the issue generate so many vivid debates in the United States and so few in most European countries, although the latter were also affected by the rationing of health care resources? Are countries with socialized health care systems better equipped to face the hard choices of triaging? Important lessons in transparency, trust, and accountability for policy‐makers can be drawn from this comparison, demonstrating that fostering public involvement and ethical debate remains a critical element for the sustained acceptance of any triage plan.