Search

Abstract Background Implementing genomic sequencing into newborn screening programs allows for significant expansion in the number and scope of conditions detected. We sought to explore public preferences and perspectives on which conditions to include in genomic newborn screening (gNBS). Methods We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age, using social media, and invited them to participate in online focus groups. Results Seventy-five members of the public aged 23–72 participated in one of fifteen focus groups. Participants agreed that if prioritisation of conditions was necessary, childhood-onset conditions were more important to include than later-onset conditions. Despite the purpose of the focus groups being to elicit public preferences, participants wanted to defer to others, such as health professionals or those with a lived experience of each condition, to make decisions about which conditions to include. Many participants saw benefit in including conditions with no available treatment. Participants agreed that gNBS should be fully publicly funded. Conclusion How many and which conditions are included in a gNBS program will be a complex decision requiring detailed assessment of benefits and costs alongside public and professional engagement. Our study provides support for implementing gNBS for treatable childhood-onset conditions.

Abstract Innovation in healthcare and biomedicine is in decline, yet there exist no widely-known alternatives to traditional brainstorming that can be employed for innovative idea generation. McCaffrey's Innovation Enhancing Techniques (IETs) were developed to enhance creative problem-solving by helping the solver to overcome common psychological obstacles to generating innovative ideas. These techniques were devised for engineering and design problems, which involve solving practical goals using physical materials. Healthcare and science problems however often involve solving abstract goals using intangible resources. Here we adapt two of McCaffrey’s IETs, BrainSwarming and the Generic Parts Technique, to effectively enhance idea generation for such problems. To demonstrate their potential, we apply these techniques to a case study involving the use of blockchain technologies to facilitate ethical goals in biomedicine, and successfully identify 100 potential solutions to this problem. Being simple to understand and easy to implement, these and other IETs have significant potential to improve innovation and idea generation in healthcare, scientific, and technological contexts. By catalysing idea generation in problem-solving, these techniques may be used to target the innovative stagnation currently facing the scientific world.

Abstract Background Allocation of scarce organs for transplantation is ethically challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed to assist in liver allocation, however the ethics of this remains unexplored and the view of the public unknown. The aim of this paper was to assess public attitudes on whether AI should be used in liver allocation and how it should be implemented. Methods We first introduce some potential ethical issues concerning AI in liver allocation, before analysing a pilot survey including online responses from 172 UK laypeople, recruited through Prolific Academic. Findings Most participants found AI in liver allocation acceptable (69.2%) and would not be less likely to donate their organs if AI was used in allocation (72.7%). Respondents thought AI was more likely to be consistent and less biased compared to humans, although were concerned about the “dehumanisation of healthcare” and whether AI could consider important nuances in allocation decisions. Participants valued accuracy, impartiality, and consistency in a decision-maker, more than interpretability and empathy. Respondents were split on whether AI should be trained on previous decisions or programmed with specific objectives. Whether allocation decisions were made by transplant committee or AI, participants valued consideration of urgency, survival likelihood, life years gained, age, future medication compliance, quality of life, future alcohol use and past alcohol use. On the other hand, the majority thought the following factors were not relevant to prioritisation: past crime, future crime, future societal contribution, social disadvantage, and gender. Conclusions There are good reasons to use AI in liver allocation, and our sample of participants appeared to support its use. If confirmed, this support would give democratic legitimacy to the use of AI in this context and reduce the risk that donation rates could be affected negatively. Our findings on specific ethical concerns also identify potential expectations and reservations laypeople have regarding AI in this area, which can inform how AI in liver allocation could be best implemented.

Abstract Background Termination of pregnancy (TOP) is not an uncommon procedure. Availability varies greatly between jurisdictions; however, additional institutional processes beyond legislation can also impact care and service delivery. This study serves to examine the role institutional processes can play in the delivery of TOP services, in a jurisdiction where TOP is lawful at all gestations (Victoria, Australia). As per the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008, TOPs post-24 weeks require the approval of two medical practitioners. However, in Victoria, hospitals that offer post-24 week TOPs generally require these cases to additionally go before a termination review committee for assessment prior to the service being provided. These committees are not stipulated in legislation. Information about these committees and how they operate is scarce and there is minimal information available to the public. Methods To trace the history, function, and decision-making processes of these committees, we conducted a qualitative interview study. We interviewed 27 healthcare professionals involved with these committees. We used purposive sampling to gain perspectives from a range of professions across 10 hospitals. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, identifying details removed and inductive thematic analysis was performed. Results Here, we report the three main functions of the committees as described by participants. The functions were to protect: (1) outward appearances; (2) inward functionality; and/or, (3) service users. Function (1) could mean protecting the hospital’s reputation, with the “Herald Sun test”—whether the TOP would be acceptable to readers of the Herald Sun, a tabloid newspaper—used as a heuristic. Function (2) related to logistics within the hospital and protecting the psychological wellbeing and personal reputation of healthcare professionals. The final function (3) related to ensuring patients received a high standard of care. Conclusions The primary functions of these committees appear to be about protecting hospitals and clinicians within a context where these procedures are controversial and stigmatized. The results of this study provide further clarity on the processes involved in the provision of TOPs at later gestations from the perspectives of the healthcare professionals involved. Institutional processes beyond those required by legislation are put in place by hospitals. These findings highlight the additional challenges faced by patients and their providers when seeking TOP at later gestations.

This perspective is part of an international effort to improve epidemiological models with the goal of reducing the unintended consequences of infectious disease interventions. The scenarios in which models are applied often involve difficult trade-offs that are well recognised in public health ethics. Unless these trade-offs are explicitly accounted for, models risk overlooking contested ethical choices and values, leading to an increased risk of unintended consequences. We argue that such risks could be reduced if modellers were more aware of ethical frameworks and had the capacity to explicitly account for the relevant values in their models. We propose that public health ethics can provide a conceptual foundation for developing this capacity. After reviewing relevant concepts in public health and clinical ethics, we discuss examples from the COVID-19 pandemic to illustrate the current separation between public health ethics and infectious disease modelling. We conclude by describing practical steps to build the capacity for ethically aware modelling. Developing this capacity constitutes a critical step towards ethical practice in computational modelling of public health interventions, which will require collaboration with experts on public health ethics, decision support, behavioural interventions, and social determinants of health, as well as direct consultation with communities and policy makers.

Background: There is a global shortage of health providers in abortion care. Public discourse presents abortion providers as dangerous and greedy and links ‘conscience’ with refusal to participate. This may discourage provision. A scoping review of empirical evidence is needed to inform public perceptions of the reasons that health providers participate in abortion. Objective: The study aimed to identify what is known about health providers’ reasons for participating in abortion provision. Eligibility criteria: Studies were eligible if they included health providers’ reasons for participating in legal abortion provision. Only empirical studies were eligible for inclusion. Sources of evidence: We searched the following databases from January 2000 until January 2022: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ScienceDirect and Centre for Agricultural and Biosciences International Abstracts. Grey literature was also searched. Methods: Dual screening was conducted of both title/abstract and full-text articles. Health providers’ reasons for provision were extracted and grouped into preliminary categories based on the existing research. These categories were revised by all authors until they sufficiently reflected the extracted data. Results: From 3251 records retrieved, 68 studies were included. In descending order, reasons for participating in abortion were as follows: supporting women’s choices and advocating for women’s rights (76%); being professionally committed to participating in abortion (50%); aligning with personal, religious or moral values (39%); finding provision satisfying and important (33%); being influenced by workplace exposure or support (19%); responding to the community needs for abortion services (14%) and participating for practical and lifestyle reasons (8%). Conclusion: Abortion providers participated in abortion for a range of reasons. Reasons were mainly focused on supporting women’s choices and rights; providing professional health care; and providing services that aligned with the provider’s own personal, religious or moral values. The findings provided no evidence to support negative portrayals of abortion providers present in public discourse. Like conscientious objectors, abortion providers can also be motivated by conscience.

The use of novel technologies in the selection of embryos during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) has the potential to improve the chances of pregnancy and birth of a healthy child. However, it is important to be aware of the potential risks and unintended consequences that may arise from the premature implementation of these technologies. This article discusses the ethical considerations surrounding the use of novel embryo selection technologies in IVF, including the growing uptake of genetic testing and others, and argues that prioritising embryos for transfer using these technologies is acceptable, but discarding embryos based on unproven advances is not. Several historical examples are provided, which demonstrate possible harms, where the overall chance of pregnancy may have been reduced, and some patients may have missed out on biological parenthood altogether. We emphasise the need for caution and a balanced approach to ensure that the benefits of these technologies outweigh any potential harm. We also highlight the primacy of patients' autonomy in reproductive decision-making, especially when information gained by utilising novel technologies is imprecise.

Recent dramatic reductions in the timeframe in which genomic sequencing can deliver results means its application in time-sensitive screening programs such as newborn screening (NBS) is becoming a reality. As genomic NBS (gNBS) programs are developed around the world, there is an increasing need to address the ethical and social issues that such initiatives raise. This study therefore aimed to explore the Australian public’s perspectives and values regarding key gNBS characteristics and preferences for service delivery. We recruited English-speaking members of the Australian public over 18 years of age via social media; 75 people aged 23–72 participated in 1 of 15 focus groups. Participants were generally supportive of introducing genomic sequencing into newborn screening, with several stating that the adoption of such revolutionary and beneficial technology was a moral obligation. Participants consistently highlighted receiving an early diagnosis as the leading benefit, which was frequently linked to the potential for early treatment and intervention, or access to other forms of assistance, such as peer support. Informing parents about the test during pregnancy was considered important. This study provides insights into the Australian public’s views and preferences to inform the delivery of a gNBS program in the Australian context.

Abstract Background In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, many health systems, including those in the UK, developed triage guidelines to manage severe shortages of ventilators. At present, there is an insufficient understanding of how the public views these guidelines, and little evidence on which features of a patient the public believe should and should not be considered in ventilator triage. Methods Two surveys were conducted with representative UK samples. In the first survey, 525 participants were asked in an open-ended format to provide features they thought should and should not be considered in allocating ventilators for COVID-19 patients when not enough ventilators are available. In the second survey, 505 participants were presented with 30 features identified from the first study, and were asked if these features should count in favour of a patient with the feature getting a ventilator, count against the patient, or neither. Statistical tests were conducted to determine if a feature was generally considered by participants as morally relevant and whether its mean was non-neutral. Results In Survey 1, the features of a patient most frequently cited as being morally relevant to determining who would receive access to ventilators were age, general health, prospect of recovery, having dependents, and the severity of COVID symptoms. The features most frequently cited as being morally irrelevant to determining who would receive access to ventilators are race, gender, economic status, religion, social status, age, sexual orientation, and career. In Survey 2, the top three features that participants thought should count in favour of receiving a ventilator were pregnancy, having a chance of dying soon, and having waited for a long time. The top three features that participants thought should count against a patient receiving a ventilator were having committed violent crimes in the past, having unnecessarily engaged in activities with a high risk of COVID-19 infection, and a low chance of survival. Conclusions The public generally agreed with existing UK guidelines that allocate ventilators according to medical benefits and that aim to avoid discrimination based on demographic features such as race and gender. However, many participants expressed potentially non-utilitarian concerns, such as inclining to deprioritise ventilator allocation to those who had a criminal history or who contracted the virus by needlessly engaging in high-risk activities.

Institutional objection (IO) occurs when institutions providing health care claim objector status and refuse to provide legally permissible health services such as abortion. IO may be regulated by sources including law, ethical codes and policies (including State and local/institutional policies). We conducted a mixed-methods narrative review of the empirical evidence exploring IO to abortion provision globally, to inform areas for further research. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (CAB Abstracts), ScienceDirect and Scopus were searched in August 2021 using keywords including ‘conscientious objection’, ‘faith-based organizations’, ‘religious hospitals’ and ‘abortion’. Eligible research focused on clinicians’ attitudes and experiences of IO to abortion. The 28 studies included in the review were from nine countries: United States (19), Chile (2), Turkey (1), Argentina (1), Australia (1), Colombia (1), Ghana (1), Poland (1) and South Africa (1). The analysis demonstrated that IO was claimed in a range of countries, despite different legislative and policy frameworks. There was strong evidence from the United States that clinicians in religious healthcare institutions were less likely to provide abortions and abortion referrals, and that training of future abortion providers was negatively affected by IO. Qualitative evidence from other countries showed that IO was claimed by secular as well as religious institutions, and individual conscientious objection could be used as a mechanism for imposing IO. Further research is needed to explore whether IO is morally justified, how decisions are made to claim IO, and on what grounds. Finally, appropriate models for regulating IO are needed to ensure the protection of women’s access to abortion. Such models could be informed by those used to regulate IO in other contexts, such as voluntary assisted dying.

Objective This study aimed to assess US/UK adults’ attitudes towards COVID-19 ventilator and vaccine allocation.Design Online survey including US and UK adults, sampled to be representative for sex, age, race, household income and employment. A total of 2580 participated (women=1289, age range=18 to 85 years, Black American=114, BAME=138).Interventions Participants were asked to allocate ventilators or vaccines in scenarios involving individuals or groups with different medical risk and additional risk factors.Results Participant race did not impact vaccine or ventilator allocation decisions in the USA, but did impact ventilator allocation attitudes in the UK (F(4,602)=6.95, p

Abstract Background ECMO is a particularly scarce resource during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its allocation involves ethical considerations that may be different to usual times. There is limited pre-pandemic literature on the ethical factors that ECMO physicians consider during ECMO allocation. During the pandemic, there has been relatively little professional guidance specifically relating to ethics and ECMO allocation; although there has been active ethical debate about allocation of other critical care resources. We report the results of a small international exploratory survey of ECMO clinicians’ views on different patient factors in ECMO decision-making prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We then outline current ethical decision procedures and recommendations for rationing life-sustaining treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and examine the extent to which current guidelines for ECMO allocation (and reported practice) adhere to these ethical guidelines and recommendations. Methods An online survey was performed with responses recorded between mid May and mid August 2020. Participants (n = 48) were sourced from the ECMOCard study group—an international group of experts (n = 120) taking part in a prospective international study of ECMO and intensive care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey compared the extent to which certain ethical factors involved in ECMO resource allocation were considered prior to and during the pandemic. Results When initiating ECMO during the pandemic, compared to usual times, participants reported giving more ethical weight to the benefit of ECMO to other patients not yet admitted as opposed to those already receiving ECMO, (p

Genetic variants that influence susceptibility to COVID-19 have recently been identified. In this manuscript, we identify and discuss some of the ethical and practical issues raised by these studies. We first outline the ethical case for providing COVID-19 susceptibility testing to healthcare workers, as well as highlighting risks associated with privacy and discrimination. We then argue that the existence of genetically susceptible individuals has implications for the ethical conduct of COVID-19 human challenge trials. Finally, we discuss the ethical issues that could arise from other COVID-19 host–genome interactions, including the prospect of personalized vaccines.

Rapid genomic testing (rGT) enables genomic information to be available in a matter of hours, allowing it to be used in time-critical settings, such as intensive care units. Although rGT has been shown to improve diagnostic rates in a cost-effective manner, it raises ethical questions around a range of different areas, including obtaining consent and clinical decision-making. While some research has examined the perspectives of parents and genetics health professionals, the attitudes of intensive care clinicians remain under-explored. To address this gap, we administered an online survey to English-speaking neonatal/paediatric intensivists in Europe, Australasia and North America. We posed two ethical scenarios: one relating to obtaining consent from the parents and the second assessing decision-making regarding the provision of life-sustaining treatments. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. We received 40 responses from 12 countries. About 50–75% of intensivists felt that explicit parental consent was necessary for rGT. About 68–95% felt that a diagnosis from rGT should affect the provision of life-sustaining care. Results were mediated by intensivists’ level of experience. Our findings show divergent attitudes toward ethical issues generated by rGT among intensivists and suggest the need for guidance regarding ethical decision-making for rGT.

Abstract Background Genomic research can reveal ‘unsolicited’ or ‘incidental’ findings that are of potential health or reproductive significance to participants. It is widely thought that researchers have a moral obligation, grounded in the duty of easy rescue, to return certain kinds of unsolicited findings to research participants. It is less widely thought that researchers have a moral obligation to actively look for health-related findings (for example, by conducting additional analyses to search for findings outside the scope of the research question). Main text This paper examines whether there is a moral obligation, grounded in the duty of easy rescue, to actively hunt for genomic secondary findings. We begin by showing how the duty to disclose individual research findings can be grounded in the duty of easy rescue. Next, we describe a parallel moral duty, also grounded in the duty of easy rescue, to actively hunt for such information. We then consider six possible objections to our argument, each of which we find unsuccessful. Some of these objections provide reason to limit the scope of the duty to look for secondary findings, but none provide reason to reject this duty outright. Conclusions We argue that under a certain range of circumstances, researchers are morally required to hunt for these kinds of secondary findings. Although these circumstances may not currently obtain, genomic researchers will likely acquire an obligation to hunt for secondary findings as the field of genomics continues to evolve.

Background: The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. Objectives: To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. Design: To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. Setting: A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. Results: To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Conclusions: The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. Limitations: Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. Future work: Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space. Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council–National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

Abstract Background The non-identity problem arises when our actions in the present could change which people will exist in the future, for better or worse. Is it morally better to improve the lives of specific future people, as compared to changing which people exist for the better? Affecting the timing of fetuses being conceived is one case where present actions change the identity of future people. This is relevant to questions of public health policy, as exemplified in some responses to the Zika epidemic. There is philosophical disagreement about the relevance of non-identity: some hold that non-identity is not relevant, while others think that the only morally relevant actions are those that affect specific people. Given this disagreement, we investigated the intuitions about the moral relevance of non-identity within an educated sample of the public, because there was previously little empirical data on the public’s views on the non-identity problem. Methods We performed an online survey with a sample of the educated general public. The survey assessed participants’ preferences between person-affecting and impersonal interventions for Zika, and their views on other non-identity thought experiments, once the non-identity problem had been explained. It aimed to directly measure the importance of non-identity in participants’ moral decision-making. Results We collected 763 valid responses from the survey. Half of the participants (50%) had a graduate degree, 47% had studied philosophy at a university level, and 20% had read about the non-identity problem before. Most participants favoured person-affecting interventions for Zika over impersonal ones, but the majority claimed that non-identity did not influence their decision (66% of those preferring person-affecting interventions, 95% of those preferring impersonal ones). In one non-identity thought experiment participants were divided, but in another they primarily answered that impersonally reducing the quality of life of future people would be wrong, harmful and blameworthy, even though no specific individuals would be worse off. Conclusions Non-identity appeared to play a minor role in participants’ moral decision-making. Moreover, participants seem to either misunderstand the non-identity problem, or hold non-counterfactual views of harm that do not define harm as making someone worse off than they would have been otherwise.

Background: The combination of time-lapse imaging and artificial intelligence (AI) offers novel potential for embryo assessment by allowing a vast quantity of image data to be analysed via machine learning. Most algorithms developed to date have used neural networks which are uninterpretable (“black-box”) and cannot be understood by doctors, embryologists and patients, which raises ethical and epistemic concerns for embryo selection in a clinical setting. Aim: This study aims to discuss ethical and epistemic considerations surrounding clinical implementation of “black-box” based embryo selection algorithms. Method: A scoping review was performed by evaluating publications reporting “black-box” embryo selection algorithms. Potential ethical and epistemic issues were identified and discussed. Results: No randomised controlled trial was identified in the literature evaluating clinical effectiveness of “black-box” embryo selection algorithms. Several ethical and epistemic concerns were identified. Potential ethical issues included (1) lack of randomised controlled trials, (2) impact on the shared decision-making process in embryo selection between clinicians and patients, (3) misrepresentation of patient values due to hidden reasoning process in “black-box” algorithms, (4) social impacts if algorithm subsequently proven to be biased, and (5) unclear responsibility when algorithm makes obviously poor choices of embryos. Potential epistemic issues included (1) information asymmetries between algorithm developers and doctors, embryologists and patients; (2) risk of biased prediction due to data selection during training process; (3) inability to troubleshoot for data training purposes due to limited interpretability; and (4) the economics of buying into commercial proprietary add-ons. Conclusion: There are significant epistemic and ethical concerns with “black-box” embryo selection. No published randomised controlled trial is available to support its clinical implementation. AI embryo selection in general, however, is potentially useful but must be done carefully and transparently. Interpretable AI would be preferred alternative in causing fewer issues.

BackgroundMany patients at the end of life require analgesia to relieve pain. Additionally, up to 1/5 of patients in the UK receive sedation for refractory symptoms at the end of life. The use of sedation in end-of-life care (EOLC) remains controversial. While gradual sedation to alleviate intractable suffering is generally accepted, there is more opposition towards deliberate and rapid sedation to unconsciousness (so-called "terminal anaesthesia", TA). However, the general public's views about sedation in EOLC are not known. We sought to investigate the general public's views to inform policy and practice in the UK.MethodsWe performed two anonymous online surveys of members of the UK public, sampled to be representative for key demographic characteristics (n = 509). Participants were given a scenario of a hypothetical terminally ill patient with one week of life left. We sought views on the acceptability of providing titrated analgesia, gradual sedation, terminal anaesthesia, and euthanasia. We asked participants about the intentions of doctors, what risks of sedation would be acceptable, and the equivalence of terminal anaesthesia and euthanasia.FindingsOf the 509 total participants, 84% and 72% indicated that it is permissible to offer titrated analgesia and gradual sedation (respectively); 75% believed it is ethical to offer TA. Eighty-eight percent of participants indicated that they would like to have the option of TA available in their EOLC (compared with 79% for euthanasia); 64% indicated that they would potentially wish for TA at the end of life (52% for euthanasia). Two-thirds indicated that doctors should be allowed to make a dying patient completely unconscious. More than 50% of participants believed that TA and euthanasia were non-equivalent; a third believed they were.InterpretationThese novel findings demonstrate substantial support from the UK general public for the use of sedation and TA in EOLC. More discussion is needed about the range of options that should be offered for dying patients.

Objective As cases of COVID-19 infections surge, concerns have renewed about intensive care units (ICUs) being overwhelmed and the need for specific triage protocols over winter. This study aimed to help inform triage guidance by exploring the views of lay people about factors to include in triage decisions.Design, setting and participants Online survey between 29th of May and 22nd of June 2020 based on hypothetical triage dilemmas. Participants recruited from existing market research panels, representative of the UK general population. Scenarios were presented in which a single ventilator is available, and two patients require ICU admission and ventilation. Patients differed in one of: chance of survival, life expectancy, age, expected length of treatment, disability and degree of frailty. Respondents were given the option of choosing one patient to treat or tossing a coin to decide.Results Seven hundred and sixty-three participated. A majority of respondents prioritised patients who would have a higher chance of survival (72%–93%), longer life expectancy (78%–83%), required shorter duration of treatment (88%–94%), were younger (71%–79%) or had a lesser degree of frailty (60%–69%, all p

Abstract Background In the United Kingdom (UK), a number of National Health Service (NHS) Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG) have proposed controversial measures to restrict elective surgery for patients who either smoke or are obese. Whilst the nature of these measures varies between NHS authorities, typically, patients above a certain Body Mass Index (BMI) and smokers are required to lose weight and quit smoking prior to being considered eligible for elective surgery. Patients will be supported and monitored throughout this mandatory period to ensure their clinical needs are appropriately met. Controversy regarding such measures has primarily centred on the perceived unfairness of targeting certain health states and lifestyle choices to save public money. Concerns have also been raised in response to rhetoric from certain NHS authorities, which may be taken to imply that such measures punitively hold people responsible for behaviours affecting their health states, or simply for being in a particular health state. Main Body In this paper, we examine the various elective surgery rationing measures presented by NHS authorities. We argue that, where obesity and smoking have significant implications for elective surgical outcomes, bearing on effectiveness, the rationing of this surgery can be justified on prognostic grounds. It is permissible to aim to maximise the benefit provided by limited resources, especially for interventions that are not urgently required. However, we identify gaps in the empirical evidence needed to conclusively demonstrate these prognostic grounds, particularly for obese patients. Furthermore, we argue that appeals to personal responsibility, both in the prospective and retrospective sense, are insufficient in justifying this particular policy. Conclusion Given the strength of an alternative justification grounded in clinical effectiveness, rhetoric from NHS authorities should avoid explicit statements, which suggest that personal responsibility is the key justificatory basis of proposed rationing measures.

Theoretical ethics includes both metaethics (the meaning of moral terms) and normative ethics (ethical theories and principles). Practical ethics involves making decisions about every day real ethical problems, like decisions about euthanasia, what we should eat, climate change, treatment of animals, and how we should live. It utilizes ethical theories, like utilitarianism and Kantianism, and principles, but more broadly a process of reflective equilibrium and consistency to decide how to act and be.

We describe the “evaluability bias”: the tendency to weight the importance of an attribute in proportion to its ease of evaluation. We propose that the evaluability bias influences decision making in the context of charitable giving: people tend to have a strong preference for charities with low overhead ratios (lower administrative expenses) but not for charities with high cost-effectiveness (greater number of saved lives per dollar), because the former attribute is easier to evaluate than the latter. In line with this hypothesis, we report the results of four studies showing that, when presented with a single charity, people are willing to donate more to a charity with low overhead ratio, regardless of cost-effectiveness. However, when people are presented with two charities simultaneously—thereby enabling comparative evaluation—they base their donation behavior on cost-effectiveness (Study 1). This suggests that people primarily value cost-effectiveness but manifest the evaluability bias in cases where they find it difficult to evaluate. However, people seem also to value a low overhead ratio for its own sake (Study 2). The evaluability bias effect applies to charities of different domains (Study 3). We also show that overhead ratio is easier to evaluate when its presentation format is a ratio, suggesting an inherent reference point that allows meaningful interpretation (Study 4).