Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Mistrust and inconsistency during COVID-19: considerations for resource allocation guidelines that prioritise healthcare workers
Free
  1. Alexander T M Cheung,
  2. Brendan Parent
  1. Division of Medical Ethics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Alexander T M Cheung, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; alexander.cheung{at}nyulangone.org

Abstract

As the USA contends with another surge in COVID-19 cases, hospitals may soon need to answer the unresolved question of who lives and dies when ventilator demand exceeds supply. Although most triage policies in the USA have seemingly converged on the use of clinical need and benefit as primary criteria for prioritisation, significant differences exist between institutions in how to assign priority to patients with identical medical prognoses: the so-called ‘tie-breaker’ situations. In particular, one’s status as a frontline healthcare worker (HCW) has been a proposed criterion for prioritisation in the event of a tie. This article outlines two major grounds for reconsidering HCW prioritisation. The first recognises trust as an indispensable element of clinical care and mistrust as a hindrance to any public health strategy against the virus, thus raising concerns about the outward appearance of favouritism. The second considers the ways in which proponents of HCW prioritisation deviate from the very ‘ethics frameworks’ that often preface triage policies and serve to guide resource allocation—a rhetorical strategy that may undermine the very ethical foundations on which triage policies stand. By appealing to trust and consistency, we re-examine existing arguments in favour of HCW prioritisation and provide a more tenable justification for adjudicating on tie-breaker events during crisis standards of care.

  • resource allocation
  • allocation of health care resources
  • public health ethics
  • policy guidelines/inst. review boards/review cttes

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/usage
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Twitter @parent_brendan

  • Contributors AC developed the concept for the article with consultation and expansion from BP. AC performed the literature review and primary drafting, while BP provided revisions and expansion on concepts. AC is the guarantor for the overall content.

  • Funding AC and BP acknowledge support from the NYU Rudin Medical Ethics and Humanities Fellowship (No Grant/Award Number).

  • 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.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.