Search

Ever since the emergence of SARS, when we were reminded that the nature of health care practitioners' duty to care is greatly contested, it has remained a polarizing issue. Discussions on the nature and limits of health care practitioners' duty to care during disasters and public health emergencies abounds the literature, ripe with arguments seeking to ground its foundations. However, to date there has been little public engagement on this issue. This study involved three Townhall meetings held between February 2008 and May 2010 in three urban settings in Canada in order to probe lay citizens' views about ethical issues related to pandemic influenza, including issues surrounding the duty to care. Participants included Canadian residents aged 18 and over who were fluent in English. Data were collected through day-long facilitated group discussions using case scenarios and focus group guides. Participant's views were organized according to several themes, including the following main themes (and respective sub-themes): 1. Legitimate limits; a) competing obligations; and b) appeal to personal choice; and 2. Legitimate expectations; a) reciprocity; and b) enforcement and planning. Our findings show that participants moved away from categorical notions of the duty to care towards more equivocal and often normative views throughout deliberations. Our analysis contributes a better understanding of the constitutive nature of the duty to care, defined in part by taking account of public views. This broadened understanding can further inform the articulation of acceptable norms of duty to care and policy development efforts. What is more, it illustrates the urgent need for policy-makers and regulators to get clarity on obligations, responsibilities, and accountability in the execution of HCPs' duty to care during times of universal vulnerability., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pandemic influenza may exacerbate existing scarcity of life-saving medical resources. As a result, decision-makers may be faced with making tough choices about who will receive care and who will have to wait or go without. Although previous studies have explored ethical issues in priority setting from the perspective of clinicians and policymakers, there has been little investigation into how the public views priority setting during a pandemic influenza, in particular related to intensive care resources., Methods: To bridge this gap, we conducted three public town hall meetings across Canada to explore Canadian's perspectives on this ethical challenge. Town hall discussions group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis., Results: Six interrelated themes emerged from the town hall discussions related to: ethical and empirical starting points for deliberation; criteria for setting priorities; pre-crisis planning; in-crisis decision-making; the need for public deliberation and input; and participants' deliberative struggle with the ethical issues., Conclusions: Our findings underscore the importance of public consultation in pandemic planning for sustaining public trust in a public health emergency. Participants appreciated the empirical and ethical uncertainty of decision-making in an influenza pandemic and demonstrated nuanced ethical reasoning about priority setting of intensive care resources in an influenza pandemic. Policymakers may benefit from a better understanding the public's empirical and ethical 'starting points' in developing effective pandemic plans.