Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
COVID-19 – ethical legacies in the UK from the first two waves
During the first UK wave of the pandemic, there were two areas of immediate ethical concern for the medical profession. The first was the possibility that life-saving resources could be overwhelmed. Early reports from hospitals in the Italian city of Bergamo suggested that ventilatory support might need rationing and emergency ‘battlefield’ triage was a real possibility.1 In the UK, several professional bodies, including the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians rapidly developed guidance for doctors should triage become a reality.2 The second issue was the acute shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). Where doctors were unable to protect their patients – and themselves – from the risk of COVID-19, ethical challenges emerged. Ordinarily, doctors and patients do not present risks of significant harm to each other. To shift to a position where every patient – and every health professional – could potentially be a threat presented serious clinical and ethical challenges. To treat with inadequate PPE, so options for mitigating harms are radically reduced, deepens the challenges. Among the questions the BMA wrestled with was the extent of doctors’ duties to treat infected or potentially infected patients in the absence of effective PPE. The BMA was clear that despite obligations to treat, medicine is not a self-sacrificing profession: there were limits to the risk doctors could be required to expose themselves to.3
These issues no longer seem so pressing. In the UK at least, there is adequate PPE and with the second steep wave behind us, and significant numbers vaccinated, it is less likely that triage will be required in the UK. But as those concerns have receded so other ethical questions have arisen. Among them is a cluster of issues associated with what might be called COVID-19’s indirect harms. Understandably, in response to …
Footnotes
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.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Other content recommended for you
- Population-based survey methods to quantify associations between human rights violations and health outcomes among internally displaced persons in eastern Burma
- High court should not restrict access to puberty blockers for minors
- Health and human rights are inextricably linked in the COVID-19 response
- The human rights responsibilities of multinational tobacco companies
- Tobacco industry’s human rights makeover: an archival review of British American Tobacco’s human rights rhetorical veneer
- Forever young? The ethics of ongoing puberty suppression for non-binary adults
- Two dilemmas for medical ethics in the treatment of gender dysphoria in youth
- What are the health outcomes of trans and gender diverse young people in Australia? Study protocol for the Trans20 longitudinal cohort study
- Seven days in medicine: 24-30 March 2021
- Gender dysphoria: Parents can consent to puberty blockers for their child, says judge