Article Text
Abstract
Due to COVID-19’s strain on health systems across the globe, triage protocols determine how to allocate scarce medical resources with the worthy goal of maximising the number of lives saved. However, due to racial biases and long-standing health inequities, the common method of ranking patients based on impersonal numeric representations of their morbidity is associated with disproportionately pronounced racial disparities. In response, policymakers have issued statements of solidarity. However, translating support into responsive COVID-19 policy is rife with complexity. Triage does not easily lend itself to race-based exceptions. Reordering triage queues based on an individual patient’s racial affiliation has been considered but may be divisive and difficult to implement. And while COVID-19 hospital policies may be presented as rigidly focused on saving the most lives, many make exceptions for those deemed worthy by policymakers such as front-line healthcare workers, older physicians, pregnant women and patients with disabilities. These exceptions demonstrate creativity and ingenuity—hallmarks of policymakers’ abilities to flexibly respond to urgent societal concerns—which should also be extended to patients of colour. This paper dismantles common arguments against the confrontation of racial inequity within COVID-19 triage protocols, highlights concerns related to existing proposals and proposes a new paradigm to increase equity when allocating scarce COVID-19 resources.
- clinical ethics
- distributive justice
- health care for specific diseases/groups
- minorities
- COVID-19
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usageStatistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors The initially submitted draft was created solely by the corresponding author. The revised drafts were completed by both authors. Both authors participated in the revised versions’ design, analysis and interpretation. Both authors drafted and revised for critically important intellectual content. Both authors gave final approval of the version to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work related to accuracy and integrity.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement There are no data in this work.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Triage and justice in an unjust pandemic: ethical allocation of scarce medical resources in the setting of racial and socioeconomic disparities
- Promoting equity with a multi-principle framework to allocate scarce ICU resources
- Ethics of reallocating ventilators in the covid-19 pandemic
- Narrative trajectories of disaster response: ethical preparedness from Katrina to COVID-19
- Sequential organ failure assessment, ventilator rationing and evolving triage guidance: new evidence underlines the need to recognise and revise, unjust allocation frameworks
- The critical role of the NHS Race and Health Observatory
- Essential(ist) medicine: promoting social explanations for racial variation in biomedical research
- Centring race, deprivation, and disease severity in healthcare priority setting
- Race and resource allocation: an online survey of US and UK adults’ attitudes toward COVID-19 ventilator and vaccine distribution
- Rationing, racism and justice: advancing the debate around ‘colourblind’ COVID-19 ventilator allocation