Article Text
Abstract
Healthcare professionals’ capacity to protect themselves, while caring for infected patients during an infectious disease pandemic, depends on their ability to practise universal precautions. In turn, universal precautions rely on the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE). During the SARS-CoV2 outbreak many healthcare workers across the globe have been reluctant to provide patient care because crucial PPE components are in short supply. The lack of such equipment during the pandemic was not a result of careful resource allocation decisions in the global north, where the short supply could be explained through their high cost. Instead, they were the result of democratically elected governments prioritising low tax regimes over an adequate resourcing of their healthcare delivery systems. Such decisions were made despite global health experts warning about the high probability of pandemics like SARS-CoV2 occurring during our lifetimes. Avoidable allocation decisions by democratically elected political leaders resulted in a lack of sufficient PPE for healthcare professionals. After discussing and discounting various ethical arguments in support of a professional obligation to treat, even without or with suboptimal PPE, I conclude that these policy decisions were sufficiently grave that they provide a sound ethical rationale to justify healthcare workers’ refusal to provide care to infected patients.
- clinical ethics
- codes of/position statements on professional ethics
- health personnel
- philosophy of the health professions
- public health ethics
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 I am the sole author of this manuscript.
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.
Other content recommended for you
- Cross-sectional study of personal protective equipment use, training and biosafety preparedness among healthcare workers during the first months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Brazil
- Frontline healthcare workers’ experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid qualitative appraisal
- Use of personal protective equipment against coronavirus disease 2019 by healthcare professionals in Wuhan, China: cross sectional study
- Factors affecting healthcare workers’ compliance with social and behavioural infection control measures during emerging infectious disease outbreaks: rapid evidence review
- 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
- Mental health disorders among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey from three major hospitals in Kenya
- Experiences and well-being of healthcare professionals working in the field of ultrasound in obstetrics and gynaecology as the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were evolving: a cross-sectional survey study
- Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among front-line healthcare workers in Northeast Brazil: a respondent-driven sampling approach
- Attitudes, stressors and work outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic among dental assistants in Germany: a cross-sectional study
- COVID-19 risk management at the workplace, fear of infection and fear of transmission of infection among frontline employees