Search

Long-term care (LTC) centers experienced an unprecedented emergency involving exponential mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Individuals residing in long-term care were particularly vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19, placing residents, staff, families, and organizations in a precarious position. Complex issues surrounding how to manage vulnerable populations during the pandemic have highlighted the importance of gathering information on ethical issues that require effective policy and decision-making. This project sought to identify the ethical issues faced in long-term care by residents, families, staff, and organizations from stakeholders themselves. A total of 305 participants from 45 countries responded, highlighting numerous ethical issues in long-term care during COVID-19. While numerous issues were mentioned, there was an overlap in the themes of responses between stakeholders. Visitation, isolation, harm, staff well-being, and the overall enforcement of policies during the pandemic represented the most often discussed issues. As a preliminary study of this issue, future research is necessary in order to effectively guide pandemic policymaking moving forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: On December 21, 2015, Ontario began funding one cycle of IVF for each resident with a uterus under the age of 43, but with a program cap that is insufficient to meet the annual demand. Our objective was to determine how fertility patients believe that the limited number of funded IVF cycles should be distributed. Methods: A survey was distributed to patients attending a university affiliated hospital‐based fertility clinic in downtown Toronto, including its associated peripheral satellite clinics. Results: From August 2016 to March 2017, 271 patients responded to the survey, of whom 90.3% were in favour of public funding for IVF. The majority of participants favoured allocating IVF cycles to maximize patients' access to IVF in Ontario rather than targeting funded IVF cycles so as to maximize live births (62.7% vs. 32.8%). Most participants wanted all clinics to adopt the same approach for distributing funded IVF cycles compared to the current system in which each clinic chooses its own criteria for allocation (84.5% vs. 8.5%). Participants favoured distributing IVF by way of a scoring system that took individual patient factors into account. However, the factors that each respondent considered important varied materially. Conclusion: Patients overwhelmingly supported public funding for IVF, desired a consistent policy for distribution of limited funded IVF cycles at all clinics, and preferred a method that took individual patient factors into consideration when determining patient priority for funded IVF but there were heterogenous opinions on which factors should be included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]