Pandemic Ethics, Thesis Paper Example
Words: 2958Thesis Paper
What positive moral duties do various parties have in the pandemic?
The several medical, socioeconomic, and legal problems occurring in conjunction with the COVID-19 pandemic are immediately dealt with by health institutions worldwide, which in many ways change the standard of service, deemed to guarantee that most people obtain the best services in the ongoing public health crisis. The “do your best teaching is an unsuitable substitute, while understandable in the present case, to carefully consider and systemically adapt to advice for action.
The 3-tier solution of the Hastings Center to the pandemic was an excellent ethical structure, namely, the obligation to prepare, the obligation to defend, and the obligation to guide. The openness, activism, and dedication of the American College of Surgeons to benefit anyone personally or indirectly impacted by the pandemic also offer a healthy path forward. COVID-19 is an airborne pandemic disorder that grows more rapidly than our health resources. Thus, the disease’s ethical issues overlap with the ethical principles commonly used to handle the distribution of finite capital for an infectious and morbid disease to cope with the ethical issue (Lamaze and Mirko 37). We use the HIV-AIDS pandemic (a well-investigated pandemic on which the 1990s are slowly creating an ethical consensus) and ethical thinking on organ delivery in sound organ transplantation as reference points for our ethical review (which is also readily accepted and considered). We shall summarize the above-described model in each ethical concern, the norm agreed in the subsequent parallels, the similarities, and discrepancies between COVID-19 and our ethical guidelines with these references.
In the COVID-19 pandemic’s global background, several problems emerge in ethics, culture, and the law. These legal dilemmas need lawmakers and culture as a whole to examine the fundamental assumptions and pillars of our current health care system. Given the elevated probability of contamination when treating patients with this virus, what are the health practitioners’ ethical responsibilities? Do clinicians have the freedom to decline to handle a supportive COVID-19 patient, or are they obligated to treat the patient without regard to personal risk? During the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the issue was carefully studied (Bramble 453). Others claim that physicians cannot be required to risk suicidal approaches. Doctors subscribe to a degree of risk, which can be seen by our preparation and verified by our ethics codes. Has a fair risk cap been assumed?? Some also utilized virtue-based ideas of ethics to defend waiting for physicians amid personal harm.
There is a degree of intrinsic danger when handling a patient. Ethically little was assisted in the failure to handle HIV patients exclusively on the grounds of diagnosis. In contrast, our management of COVID-19-positive patients offers reliable methods of shielding us against this disorder. Proper personal protection equipment functions appropriately to avoid and restrict exposure. 11 Moreover, warnings enter the media that specific organizations lack personal security to adequately safeguard their employees and the healthcare practitioners’ ethical complexities. We must keep in mind that certain groups (e.g., persons over 60), chronic caregivers, and caregivers are more likely than others to be impacted by COVID-19. There are susceptible subsets of physicians who are more at risk in managing patients if not appropriately secured.
Areas of ethical concern
The first field of focus is equal access to pandemic healthcare. A big concern here is distributing influenza vaccines, antivirals (Tamiflu), and hospital beds. More generally, the issue is how the health services can be divided between the needs of influenza effort and other health requirements both before and after the pandemic. One linked, the more precise concern is if it is acceptable because of the urgent public need to adjust the requirements for acceptance of vaccinations or medicines for pandemics. The second field of interest involves the ethics for public health steps taken to cope with a pandemic such as tracking outbreaks of animal and human diseases, and the sharing of knowledge on outbreaks; measures to deter the spread of animal to human existence by livestock culling, etc.
The third field of ethical interest is health care workers’ responsibilities during a pandemic and society’s obligations in exchange. As Dr. Heymann pointed out, the risk and death in health workers associated with these outbreaks, for both those who needed care and those who were merely observing the epidemic, was one of many outbreaks he examined. We may assume that if health care staffs are more susceptible to illness because of their occupations, which tends to be the case with SRAS and could or may not be the case with pandemic influenza, their normal instinct to limit their exposure will be in contrast with both their personal and maybe group professional responsibilities (Gostin 1703). The acceptance of this danger in their duties would contribute to mutual commitments on the group’s part against them.
When we speak about the roles of health practitioners may be more fully identified in the case of physicians but also known for others, we would wonder whether these responsibilities arise from their unique training and position as qualified, self-governing occupations or if they represent the reality that they have a range of abilities that are especially important in comparison to health professionals. If the above is the case, wouldn’t this reasoning apply outside staff to the ordinary, limited technical definition? If the criterion is “possessing essential skills,” then wouldn’t this class cover others who are key to the health system’s operation, in crisis, including supplies drivers, maintenance workers who maintain facilities and clean up patient rooms, etc.?
Another issue is why health care workers’ responsibilities rely on superior security from society. Suppose extra security is to be provided with the responsibilities. In that case, it might require a contractual/reciprocal model of their duties rather than a technical model, in which such tasks are necessarily included. Recommendation: With appropriate protective devices, trained physicians have an ethical responsibility to support COVID-19 with favorable patient treatment. The requirement to handle productive COVID-19 patients should also extend to trainees. By joining the medical field, residents may recognize that they assume all their participants’ binding ethical responsibilities. In consideration of the danger of spread without proper precautions, it is advised that each provider measure the personal risk with a decision to handle optimistic COVID-19 patients. With the advent of more evidence on the related threats, new requirements can be reviewed and enforced. Both emergency staff must be thoroughly trained with universal safeguards.
What is the COVID-19 pandemic the target of patient confidentiality? Why do the hospital’s public and employees report good cases?
During the HIV pandemic, an agreement was reached that physicians have an ethical responsibility to protect patients’ confidentiality. However, the desire to safeguard those at risk by association will ignore this obligation. As the implications of early prevention become accessible to the public, the value of reporting has shifted. With these advantages becoming apparent, assistance for clearing patient trust exceptions is improved to alert third parties about disease exposure. While doctors have an ethical duty to maintain patient confidentiality, the obligation to protect all individuals known to be at risk of society may be resolved.
If other community members are involved, keeping optimistic patients in their privacy becomes an ethical issue. The most significant distinction between the new COVID-19 pandemic and HIV-AIDS is that a good test of COVID-19 would not entail negative bias and breaks the optimistic scale. This distinction should be rendered to make educating optimistic COVID-19 patients less ethically tricky for the public. Recommendation: We urge hospitals to alert COVID-19 suppliers about their positive standing to support the already disadvantaged workers. We also prescribe COVID-19 to reassure COVID patients confidently who are willing to express their wellbeing to all connections in danger. Owing to the elevated morbidity and mortality rates and the COVID-19 infection level, secrecy could, in the long term, be limited to concerns of public health. Therefore, it is essential for physicists and hospital networks to disclose positive cases to public bodies for evidence to be correctly checked and analyzed to inform decisions on the care and distribution of resources.
Where there are restricted testing available, which population should be screened for COVID-19?
Screening and research are an ethical problem, provided there are few samples, and the sensitivity and accuracy of tests are under-optimal. Who should be tested and who should first be screened? Initially, high-risk groups were screenable first; there was little need for anyone to show. As screening trials increased and stigma correlated with the illness declined, the ethical controversy on HIV diagnosis grew. As HIV became more routine and survival benefits were delivered early, screening improved. There are apparent variations as HIV testing practices are somewhat extrapolated to the COVID-19 pandemic. The distribution of COVID-19 is not well known, such that we do not realize who most would profit from the research. Also, a small range of experiments is still available. We need to evaluate per individual several times to obtain more accurate results.
Recommendation: Symptomatic cases should be tested since early detection and supportive care are of considerable importance because the bulk of the outbreak is believed to come from healthy patients. Since further studies and tests with improved rats are possible, asymptomatic health workers are often advised to be tested to avoid inadvertent exposure in already high-risk patients who associate with them. Finally, we suggest universal monitoring to minimize exposure by quarantining possibly contaminated individuals.
How do we distribute finite capital such as ICU beds, fans, and other medicinal products?
Much concern is devoted to the distribution of limited capital throughout the ongoing pandemic. There are currently several methods and recommendations applicable to hospitals and suppliers. Decisions on the distribution of finite capital in two groups are helpful: simple capital allocation and non-finitum allocation. The helpful logic focuses on assignment decisions to guarantee optimal conditions for optimizing organ survival and thereby for the recipient. Useful thinking focuses on assignment decisions to ensure optimal conditions for maximizing organ survival. These recommendations are focused on quantifiable data. The recipient’s social worth and life do not come into the calculation as organs are distributed according to a specific policy. This decision-making method is widely acknowledged and carefully supervised.
On the other side, non-finite limited goods are resources that might be in deficiency but also can be refinanced (sometimes by diverting funds from competing public priorities like education). We do not retrieve the organ by the moment it has proved to be transplanted into a patient by a better-worthy patient. E.g., a ventilator can, based on the relative need, be allocated to a patient at any time but subsequently withdrawn, allocating infinite scarce resources (Rudnick 2). The significant variations in the distribution of substantially limited resources such as organs and the allocation of non-finished limited resources offer rise to these distinctive and discrete challenges. Relative shortage services during the COVID-19 pandemic include ICU beds, fans, and connectivity. A collection of philosophical arguments for believing non-finite limited resources is identified: fair care of all patients, preference for the worst-off patients, first-come, first-served formulations, and maximal gains or social advantages.
Another characteristic of the present pandemic is the community’s mutual support for the protection of scarce capital. The recycling movement may be misplaced but usually commendable. We also had practitioners who have also violated the practice protocols, which usually advise our medical decisions owing to an excellent attempt to conserve limited money. E.g., no blood transfusion implies whether or not in a patient without acute heart failure, whose blood hemoglobin excesses 7g/dL, we pursue resource protection. Guidelines not to transfuse blood above this threshold are focused on well-structured research that indicates a substantial rise in morbidity and mortality unless followed. However, physicians do not think of welfare as a justification for our experience, but the protection of resources.Suggestion: Firstly, before considering resource allotment, we recommend evaluating treatment decisions on medical merits for COVID-19 and NO-COVID-19 patients. According to set care standards, resources should be preserved. Secondly, we systematically recommend that patients with limited resources be mitigated through full transparency and creative effort ( (Bramble 459). The protocol adopted for the allocation of scarce non-finite resources must be respected. Thirdly, we recommend periodic protocols to consider the changes necessary to respond to our growing knowledge of COVID-19.
What are the fundamental ethical concerns of relaxing research FDA rules and relaxing certification criteria in the medical sector?
In the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the authorities were required to issue derogations from stringent human-subject inquiry regulations 22, 23, 24. Lawyers claimed that future therapeutic agents should be excluded from existing criteria to save more lives (Thomas, Nabarun, and Amanda 29). Finally, the FDA law was modified to speed up the management of HIV drugs, which proved to be quite positive. Researchers work hard since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic to find alternative therapies and disease vaccinations in the context of relaxed legislation and often encourage them to forgo steps. To expand the number of providers of workers admission, national and local healthcare licensing standards has been scaled back. Not shockingly, unconventional potential solutions have taken patients’ lives from evidence distributed from non-scientific outlets. Recommendation: The FDA does not promote any medication or preventive not approved. Recommendation: Although the authorization method may be intensified depending on urgent needs, a process based on sound science must be maintained. We also suggest that although qualifications can adjust with ever-increasing demand, the mechanism preserves the public trust. Crucial is accountability. Crucial is accountability.
What do we do to fix end-of-life questions, not to restore treatment orders and goals?
Pandemic HIV/AIDS results showed that just 50% of patients spoke with physicians regarding end-of-life treatment (Benatar 169). This finding, along with the originally too strong HIV/AIDS mortality rate, also helped meet normal practice: early hospitalization and public service targets for patients. A few scientific papers have demonstrated the good of medical professionals as it is obtained at the ICU and even revisits our device and real patients and relatives.
The idea of joint decision-making is especially important to the priorities of treatment debates. Thus, only measures that match the desired effect with the patient’s principles and desires may be adopted for typical decision-making. Therapy plans are formed in general decision making to contribute their subjective principles and priorities and services put their scientific and technical experience into play. However, a patient may want a healthy outcome; we call that intervention medically unbeneficial if that outcome is improbable to be achieved. As with observing transfusion threshold guidelines established as care standards and compliance with the ethical obligation of non-malignant treatment, medically non-beneficial therapies, whether or not we are in the middle of a pandemic, should not be offered to patients.
There has been a great deal of attention recently to whether COVID-19 positive patients should receive CPR. It’s about the principles of futility, capital utilization, and protection for vendors. Present results suggest at least 20% of COVID-19 patients are recovered, and the CPR is not reliably unsuccessful. Recommendation: A phasing out of existence concerns is suggested for COVID-19 patients. First, resuscitation’s probable health benefits should be addressed following the standard of care, and the CPR should only be offered if the specific clinical scenario suggests medically defined benefits. Secondly, providers should only have to carry out CPR if there is sufficient protective device available; however, if there are protective devices available, the duty to carry out the CPR must be strictly determined by its probable health benefit. In the final review, it should be considered that services are distributed independently from the CPR problem, and in general, the above algorithms should comply. Although the CPR is deemed medically effective, the patient and the patient’s family must be notified immediately. Palliative measures without hesitation should be provided.
The pandemic of COVID-19 has changed our medical and societal priorities rapidly. Ethical responsibilities stay unchanged. Our dedication to accountability, security, and reverence for human life remains profoundly ingrained. In continuous reconsideration, we must take special caution to prioritize patients’ autonomy or public wellbeing. Our triaging choices can adjust in line with the dynamic supply of finite capital. As our social gap finally reduces, our capacity to honor patient wishes can be improved. Therefore it is important to revisit our three-day approaches periodically and to integrate new learning from our caregivers in our changing approach.
However, as our culture is unexpectedly transformed, the reality of our wellbeing is more complex than we have been able to accept, from the most drastic version of patient medicine to the society that gives primary value to public health. The US has a long-standing tradition of liberation embraced by New Hampshire’s slogan “Live free or die.” Rapid demographic growth and limitless social interdependence have radically redefined the limits of any person’s claim to be the vehicle of our community, and our dramatically improved survival and our connection to life-long technologies
The COVID-19 pandemic is riddled with uncertain land. Given the medical, cultural, and legal complexities of this epidemic at the early stages, our approach to ethics can also be informed by the lessons learned from both the HIV/AIDS pandemic and the models used more commonly for allocating finite resources during transplantation. Our step-by-step guidelines identify our accountability, activism, and reform commitments obligations.
Bramble, Ben. “Pandemic Ethics: 8 Big Questions of COVID-19.” (2020).
Benatar, Solomon R. “The HIV/AIDS pandemic: a sign of instability in a complex global system.” The Journal of medicine and philosophy 27.2 (2002): 163-177.
Lamaze, Andrea, and Mirko Farina. “The role of experts in the Covid-19 pandemic and the limits of their epistemic authority in a democracy.” Frontiers in public health 8 (2020).
Gostin, Lawrence. “Public health strategies for pandemic influenza: ethics and the law.” Jama 295.14 (2006): 1700-1704.
Thomas, James C., Nabarun Dasgupta, and Amanda Martinot. “Ethics in a pandemic: a survey of the state pandemic influenza plans.” American Journal of Public Health 97.Supplement_1 (2007): S26-S31.
Rudnick, Abraham. “Social, Psychological, and Philosophical Reflections on Pandemics and Beyond.” Societies 10.2 (2020): 42. Lykkeskov, Anne. “Ben Bramble, Pandemic Ethics-8 Big Questions of COVID-19,(Bartleby Books), 2020.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (2020): 1-3.
Time is precious
don’t waste it!