Article Text
Abstract
While COVID-19 has generated a massive burden of illness worldwide, healthcare workers (HCWs) have been disproportionately exposed to SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus infection. During the so-called ‘first wave’, infection rates among this population group have ranged between 10% and 20%, raising as high as one in every four COVID-19 patients in Spain at the peak of the crisis. Now that many countries are already dealing with new waves of COVID-19 cases, a potential competition between HCW and non-HCW patients for scarce resources can still be a likely clinical scenario. In this paper, we address the question of whether HCW who become ill with COVID-19 should be prioritised in diagnostic, treatment or resource allocation protocols. We will evaluate some of the proposed arguments both in favour and against the prioritisation of HCW and also consider which clinical circumstances might warrant prioritising HCW and why could it be ethically appropriate to do so. We conclude that prioritising HCW’s access to protective equipment, diagnostic tests or even prophylactic or therapeutic drug regimes and vaccines might be ethically defensible. However, prioritising HCWs to receive intensive care unit (ICU) beds or ventilators is a much more nuanced decision, in which arguments such as instrumental value or reciprocity might not be enough, and economic and systemic values will need to be considered.
- COVID-19
- clinical ethics
- resource allocation
- health workforce
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work other than referenced results from previous papers
This article is made freely available for personal 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
Data availability statement
There are no data in this work other than referenced results from previous papers
Footnotes
Contributors DRdA and JJF equally contributed to the original idea, literature research, writing and correction of the final version of this manuscript.
Funding DRdA is partially supported by the Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias (FIS grant PI19/00634, European Fund for Regional Development-EFRD) and the Foundation Jérôme Lejeune (grant no. 1777-2018).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Worry perception and its association with work conditions among healthcare workers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: a web-based multimethod survey at a university hospital in Sweden
- Who will receive the last ventilator: why COVID-19 policies should not prioritise healthcare workers
- Healthcare professionals in COVID-19-intensive care units in Norway: preparedness and working conditions: a cohort study
- Cross-sectional study evaluating the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers and factors associated with exposure during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York
- Who should get the scarce ICU bed? The US public’s view on triage in the time of COVID-19
- Remodelling of a regional emergency hub in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in Emilia-Romagna
- Lived experiences of healthcare workers on the front line during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study
- SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in healthcare workers of a teaching hospital in a highly endemic region in the Netherlands after the first wave: a cross-sectional study
- Critical care work during COVID-19: a qualitative study of staff experiences in the UK
- Identifying ethical values for guiding triage decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic: an Italian ethical committee perspective using Delphi methodology