Search

Undocumented people in the United States face innumerable legal and structural barriers to health and health care services, including for kidney failure. Their experiences vary across states and regions due to wide variation in insurance coverage and unreliable access to health-promoting resources, including medical-legal partnerships. This commentary on a case canvasses key policy about structural and legal determinants of health for undocumented persons., (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None disclosed.

Importance: Optimal health care delivery, both now and in the future, requires a continuous loop of knowledge generation, dissemination, and uptake on how best to provide care, not just determining what interventions work but also how best to ensure they are provided to those who need them. The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the most rigorous instrument to determine what works in health care. However, major issues with both the clinical trials enterprise and the lack of integration of clinical trials with health care delivery compromise medicine's ability to best serve society., Observations: In most resource-rich countries, the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises function as separate entities, with siloed goals, infrastructure, and incentives. Consequently, RCTs are often poorly relevant and responsive to the needs of patients and those responsible for care delivery. At the same time, health care delivery systems are often disengaged from clinical trials and fail to rapidly incorporate knowledge generated from RCTs into practice. Though longstanding, these issues are more pressing given the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened awareness of the disproportionate impact of poor access to optimal care on vulnerable populations, and the unprecedented opportunity for improvement offered by the digital revolution in health care. Four major areas must be improved. First, especially in the US, greater clarity is required to ensure appropriate regulation and oversight of implementation science, quality improvement, embedded clinical trials, and learning health systems. Second, greater adoption is required of study designs that improve statistical and logistical efficiency and lower the burden on participants and clinicians, allowing trials to be smarter, safer, and faster. Third, RCTs could be considerably more responsive and efficient if they were better integrated with electronic health records. However, this advance first requires greater adoption of standards and processes designed to ensure health data are adequately reliable and accurate and capable of being transferred responsibly and efficiently across platforms and organizations. Fourth, tackling the problems described above requires alignment of stakeholders in the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises through financial and nonfinancial incentives, which could be enabled by new legislation. Solutions exist for each of these problems, and there are examples of success for each, but there is a failure to implement at adequate scale., Conclusions and Relevance: The gulf between current care and that which could be delivered has arguably never been wider. A key contributor is that the 2 limbs of knowledge generation and implementation-the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises-operate as a house divided. Better integration of these 2 worlds is key to accelerated improvement in health care delivery.

Objective: The purpose of this surgical perspective is to describe the trauma care needs of the South Side of Chicago and the creation of an adult trauma center at the University of Chicago Medicine and associated hospital-based violence intervention program., Background: Traumatic injury is a leading cause of death and disability in the United States. Disparities across the continuum of trauma care exist, which are often rooted in the social determinants of health. Trauma center distribution is critical to timely treatment and should be based on the trauma needs of the area. The previous trauma ecosystem of Chicago was incongruent with the concentration of violent injuries on the south and west sides of the city, leading to a fallacy of distributive justice., Methods: A descriptive analysis of community partners, trauma program leadership, trauma surgeons, and the violence intervention program director was performed., Results: The UCM trauma center opened in May 2018 and has since been one of the busiest trauma centers in the country, with a 40% penetrating trauma rate. There have been significant reductions in patient transport time on the South Side up to 8.9 minutes ( P <0.001). The violence intervention program employs credible messengers with lived experience representing the community and has engaged over 8000 patients since 2018, developing both community-based and medical-legal partnerships., Conclusions: The persistent efforts of the community and key stakeholders led to a system change that improved trauma care for the South Side of Chicago., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The changing hospital business model has raised ethical issues for emergency physicians (EPs) in a healthcare system that often prioritizes profits over patient welfare. For-profit hospitals, driven by profit motives, may prioritize treating patients with lucrative insurance plans and those who can afford expensive treatments. Private equity investors, who now own many for-profit hospitals, focus on short-term financial gains, leading to cost-cutting measures and pressure on EPs to prioritize financial goals over patient welfare. Nonprofit hospitals, mandated to provide charity care to the underserved, may fail to meet their community service obligations, resulting in disparities in healthcare access., Objective: This review examines the ethical challenges faced by emergency physicians (EPs) in response to the evolving hospital business model, which increasingly prioritizes profits over patient welfare., Discussion: Emergency physicians face ethical dilemmas in this changing environment, including conflicts between patient care and financial interests. Upholding professional ethics and the principle of beneficence is essential. Another challenge is equitable access to healthcare, with some nonprofit hospitals reducing charity care, thus exacerbating disparities. EPs must uphold the ethical principle of justice, ensuring quality care for all patients, regardless of financial means. Conflicts of interest may arise when EPs work in hospitals owned by private equity firms or with affiliations with pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers, potentially compromising patient care., Conclusion: Emergency physicians must navigate these ethical issues while upholding professional ethics and advocating for patients' best interests. Collaboration with hospital administrators, policymakers, and stakeholders is vital to address these concerns and prioritize patient welfare in healthcare delivery., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Global conflicts and humanitarian crises have resulted in an unprecedented number of refugees and migrants. This challenges the limited resources of health care systems and jeopardizes the availability of transplant care for these deserving migrants and refugees. This was the basis for a workshop held during the Congress of the Transplantation Society (Buenos Aires, 2022). We elaborate on the proceedings of the workshop entitled "Transplantation in the Context of Migration and Refugees," organized by the Ethics Committee of The Transplantation Society and Declaration of Istanbul Custodian Group. Transplant providers from around the world shared strategies of how each region has responded to providing access to care for refugees and migrants in need of transplant services. The potential exploitation of this vulnerable group leading to illicit organ removal was addressed for each region. The Transplantation Society, Declaration of Istanbul Custodian Group, and global transplant community should continue to focus on the status of refugees and migrants and collaborate on strategies to provide access to transplant care for this deserving population. Global cooperation will be essential to provide vigilant oversight to prevent exploitation of this vulnerable population., Competing Interests: The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Even in the Netherlands, where the practice of physician-assisted death (PAD) has been legalized for over 20 years, there is no such thing as a 'right to die'. Especially patients with extraordinary requests, such as a wish for PAD based on psychiatric suffering, advanced dementia, or (a limited number of) multiple geriatric syndromes, encounter barriers in access to PAD. In this paper, we discuss whether these barriers can be justified in the context of the Dutch situation where PAD is legally permitted for those who suffer unbearably and hopelessly as a result of medical conditions. Furthermore, we explore whether there are options to address some of the barriers or their consequences, both within the Dutch legal framework or by adjusting the legal framework, and whether these options are feasible. We conclude that although there are insufficient arguments to overrule the doctor's freedom of conscience in the Netherlands, there are ways to address some of the barriers, mainly by offering support to doctors that would be willing to support a request. Moreover, we believe it is morally required to reduce or mitigate where possible the negative consequences of the barriers for patients, such as the long waiting time for those who suffer from psychiatric disorders, because it is unlikely the adjustments suggested to the system will ensure reasonable access for these patient groups., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Respect for human rights and bioethical principles in prisons is a crucial aspect of society and is proportional to the well-being of the general population. To date, these ethical principles have been lacking in prisons and prisoners are victims of abuse with strong repercussions on their physical and mental health., Methods: A systematic review was performed, through a MESH of the following words (bioethics) AND (prison), (ethics) AND (prison), (bioethics) AND (jail), (ethics) AND (jail), (bioethics) AND (penitentiary), (ethics) AND (penitentiary), (prison) AND (human rights). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined and after PRISMA, 17 articles were included in the systematic review., Results: Of the 17 articles, most were prevalence studies (n.5) or surveys (n.4), followed by cross-sectional studies (n.3), qualitative studies (n.1), retrospective (n.1) and an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study design (n.1). In most cases, the studies associated bioethics with prisoners' access to treatment for various pathologies such as vaccinations, tuberculosis, hepatitis, HIV, it was also found that bioethics in prisons was related to the mental health of prisoners, disability, ageing, the condition of women, the risk of suicide or with the request for end-of-life by prisoners. The results showed shortcomings in the system of maintaining bioethical principles and respect for human rights., Conclusions: Prisoners, in fact, find it difficult to access care, and have an increased risk of suicide and disability. Furthermore, they are often used as improper organ donors and have constrained autonomy that also compromises their willingness to have end-of-life treatments. In conclusion, prison staff (doctors, nurses, warders, managers) must undergo continuous refresher courses to ensure compliance with ethical principles and human rights in prisons., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Experiences of stigma in health care encounters among LGBTQ+ populations (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer and questioning) have long been a barrier to care. Marginalization and historically grounded fears of stigmatization have contributed to a reluctance to disclose sexual behavior and/or gender identity to health care providers. We reflect on how student nurses grappled with the ethics of patient disclosure while providing mobile outreach in Chicago for mpox (formerly monkeypox) from fall 2022 to spring 2023. Student nurses addressed how requiring disclosure of sexual behavior or sexual orientation may serve as a barrier to accessing preventive care, such as mpox vaccination. Accounts of stigma and criminalization experienced by LGBTQ+ people provide insight on challenges historically associated with disclosure in health care., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The incidence of cancer in Europe has been increasing in recent years. Despite this, cancer prevention has remained a low priority in health policies. Cancer is one of the main causes of mortality among people experiencing homelessness, who continue to have difficulties accessing prevention programs. A strategy that has been tested to favor cancer prevention is the health navigator figure. The objective of CANCERLESS project is to implement this model among populations experiencing homelessness in four European countries to foster the prevention and early detection of cancer. In this perspective, a presentation of CANCERLESS project is made, and its ethical aspects are discussed according to the ethics of public health, the ethics of care, solidarity, relational autonomy, and the social recognition of the virtue of just generosity. The ethical foundations of CANCERLESS project are rooted in social justice and in equity in access to health systems in general and cancer screening programs in particular. The ethics of public health guided by utilitarianism are insufficient in serving the interests of the most disadvantaged groups of the population. Hence, it is necessary to resort to relational bioethics that includes the ethics of care and solidarity and that recognizes the moral identity of socially excluded persons, reaffirming their position of equality in society. Relational autonomy therefore provides a broader conception by including the influence of living conditions in decisions. For this reason, the CANCERLESS project opts for a dialogue with those affected to incorporate their preferences and values into decisions about cancer prevention., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Coronado-Vázquez, Gómez-Trenado, Benito-Sánchez, Barrio-Cortes, Gil-Salmerón, Amengual-Pliego and Grabovac.)

This study's objective was to understand Colombian adolescents' experiences and preferences regarding access to sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS), either alone or accompanied. A mixed-method approach was used, involving a survey of 812 participants aged eleven to twenty-four years old and forty-five semi-structured interviews with participants aged fourteen to twenty-three. Previous research shows that adolescents prefer privacy when accessing SRHS and often do not want their parents involved. Such findings align with the longstanding tendency to frame the ethical principle of autonomy as based on independence in decision-making. However, the present study shows that such a conceptualization and application of autonomy does not adequately explain Colombian adolescent participants' preferences regarding access to SRHS. Participants shared a variety of preferences to access SRHS, with the majority of participants attaching great importance to having their parents involved, to varying degrees. What emerges is a more complex and non-homogenous conceptualization of autonomy that is not inherently grounded in independence from parental involvement in access to care. We thus argue that when developing policies involving adolescents, policymakers and health professionals should adopt a nuanced "relational autonomy" approach to better respect the myriad of preferences that Colombian (and other) adolescents may have regarding their access to SRHS., (© 2024. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd.)

Access to assisted reproductive technology (ART) and fertility preservation remains restricted in middle and low income countries. We sought to review the status of ART and fertility preservation in Brazil, considering social indicators and legislative issues that may hinder the universal access to these services. Although the Brazilian Constitution expressly provides the right to health, and ordinary law ensures the state is obliged to support family planning, access to services related to ART and fertility preservation is neither easy nor egalitarian in Brazil. Only a handful of public hospitals provide free ART, and their capacity far from meets demand. Health insurance does not cover ART, and the cost of private care is unaffordable to most people. Brazilian law supports, but does not command, the state provision of ART and fertility preservation to guarantee the right to family planning; therefore, the availability of state-funded treatments is still scarce, reinforcing social disparities. Economic projections suggest that including ART in the Brazilian health system is affordable and may actually become profitable to the state in the long term, not to mention the ethical imperative of recognizing infertility as a disease, with no reason to be excluded from a health system that claims to be 'universal'., (Copyright © 2021 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 pandemic raised distinct challenges in the field of scarce resource allocation, a long-standing area of inquiry in the field of bioethics. Policymakers and states developed crisis guidelines for ventilator triage that incorporated such factors as immediate prognosis, long-term life expectancy, and current stage of life. Often these depend upon existing risk factors for severe illness, including diabetes. However, these algorithms generally failed to account for the underlying structural biases, including systematic racism and economic disparity, that rendered some patients more vulnerable to these conditions. This paper discusses this unique ethical challenge in resource allocation through the lens of care for patients with severe COVID-19 and diabetes.

The goal of this Views and Reviews is to let colleagues and leaders well versed in the African American experience in reproductive medicine address the problems of racism affecting our trainees and patients and, more significantly, propose solutions. The areas in reproductive medicine that will be explored from the African American perspective include the pipeline of providers, health disparities, and access to infertility treatment., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: IF is chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum, member of the Welsh Medical Ethics Advisory Group, and member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus inquiry. AJP is chair of the UK Department of Health and Social Care’s (DHSC) Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI) but does not participate in policy decisions on covid-19 vaccine; he is also a member of the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of DHSC, JCVI, or WHO. AJP is chief investigator on clinical trials of Oxford University’s covid-19 vaccine funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Oxford University has entered a joint covid-19 vaccine development partnership with AstraZeneca. Competing interests: LF and AS have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests, and AS has no relevant interests to declare. LF is supported by a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship (award PF170028).

Background: The National Institute on Aging (NIA), in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the National Alzheimer's Project Act (NAPA), convened a 2020 Dementia Care, Caregiving, and Services Research Summit Virtual Meeting Series. This review article summarizes three areas of emerging science that are likely to grow in importance given advances in measurement, technologies, and diagnostic tests that were presented at the Summit., Results: Dr. Cassel discussed novel ethical considerations that have resulted from scientific advances that have enabled early diagnosis of pre-clinical dementia. Dr. Monin then summarized issues regarding emotional experiences in persons with dementia and their caregivers and care partners, including the protective impact of positive emotion and heterogeneity of differences in emotion by dementia type and individual characteristics that affect emotional processes with disease progression. Finally, Dr. Jared Benge provided an overview of the role of technologies in buffering the impact of cognitive change on real-world functioning and their utility in safety and monitoring of function and treatment adherence, facilitating communication and transportation, and increasing access to specialists in underserved or remote areas., Conclusions: National policy initiatives, supported by strong advocacy and increased federal investments, have accelerated the pace of scientific inquiry and innovation related to dementia care and services but have raised some new concerns regarding ethics, disparities, and attending to individual needs, capabilities, and preferences., (© 2021 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: JWP is cochair of ‘Keep Our NHS Public’.

In the United States, economic, racial, ethnic, geographic, and other disparities prevent access to fertility treatment and affect treatment outcomes. This opinion examines the factors that contribute to these disparities, proposes actions to address them, and replaces the document of the same name, last published in 2015., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The International Working Group for Patients' Right to Nutritional Care presents its position paper regarding nutritional care as a human right intrinsically linked to the right to food and the right to health. All people should have access to food and evidence-based medical nutrition therapy including artificial nutrition and hydration. In this regard, the hospitalized malnourished ill should mandatorily have access to screening, diagnosis, nutritional assessment, with optimal and timely nutritional therapy in order to overcome malnutrition associated morbidity and mortality, while reducing the rates of disease-related malnutrition. This right does not imply there is an obligation to feed all patients at any stage of life and at any cost. On the contrary, this right implies, from an ethical point of view, that the best decision for the patient must be taken and this may include, under certain circumstances, the decision not to feed. Application of the human rights-based approach to the field of clinical nutrition will contribute to the construction of a moral, political and legal focus to the concept of nutritional care. Moreover, it will be the cornerstone to the rationale of political and legal instruments in the field of clinical nutrition., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Diana Cardenas: none; Maria Isabel Toulson Davisson Correia: Lecturer for Abbott, Baxter, Danone, Fresenius, Nestlé, Takeda; Juan B Ochoa: Lecturer for Nestle Health Science, Fresenius Kabi and a past Chief Medical Officer until July 1, 2018 - Nestle Health Science North America; Gil Hardy: none;(;) Dolores Rodriguez-Ventimilla: none; Charles Bermúdez: Abbott, Baxter, Fresenius, Nestlé, Amarey, Bbraun, Fenavi, Eurociencia, Takeda; Karin Papapietro: Lecturer for Fresenius;(;) Régis Hankard: none(;) André Briend: none; Katerina Zakka: none; Teresa Pounds: none; Winai Ungpinitpong: none; Cristina Cuerda: Lecturer for Abbott, Baxter, Fresenius, Nestle, Nutricia, Persan, Takeda;(;) Rocco Barazzoni: none., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

While telemedicine had been utilized in varying ways over the last several years, it has dramatically accelerated in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article we describe the privacy issues, in relation to the barriers to care for health care providers and barriers to the obstetric patient, licensing and payments for telehealth services, technological issues and language barriers. While there may be barriers to the use of telehealth services this type of care is feasible and the barriers are surmountable., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Oral health is a critical part of overall health. The current COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of oral health. In this article, we describe how dental practice has been impacted by COVID-19, identify the public health response to COVID-19, and explain the gradual resumption of dental care after the initial disruption due to the pandemic. Finally, we discuss how long-standing health disparities in oral health have been exacerbated by the current pandemic.

The American Geriatrics Society is committed to taking purposeful steps to address racism in health care, given its impact on older adults, their families, and our communities. In fall 2020, AGS added a statement to our vision for the future, which reflects that our commitment is central to mission: "We all are supported by and able to contribute to communities where ageism, ableism, classism, homophobia, racism, sexism, xenophobia, and other forms of bias and discrimination no longer impact healthcare access, quality, and outcomes for older adults and their caregivers." In 2021, we will be working to flesh out a multi-year, multi-pronged initiative that addresses the intersection of structural racism and ageism in health care. This will include engaging members in identifying strategies and with the goal of increasing member engagement around the idea that it will take all of us working together to achieve our vision for a collective future that is free of discrimination and bias. The Society has set as the first objective that by 2031, 100% of research presented at the AGS Annual Scientific Meeting and published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) will reflect the diversity of the population being studied. Other immediate efforts include undertaking a complete update of the Geriatrics Cultural Navigator, development of corresponding public education materials, and a webinar series focused on helping us all understand our own implicit bias, recognize implicit and explicit bias, and consider actions that we each might take to address bias when we observe it., (© 2021 The American Geriatrics Society.)

The world is currently facing another severe pandemic, Covid-19, just four decades after the start of AIDS, and the still increasing incidence of HIV infection continues to be one of the greatest global health challenges. The way the latter was confronted is of fundamental importance for a serious discussion on global health, ethics and human rights, and this experience could and can still be applied to Covid-19. The Covid-19 pandemic has specific characteristics and these will be discussed, in relation to vaccine research and especially to the global right to equal access to products proven to be safe and effective. The article focusses primarily on issues related to Covid-19 vaccines, especially the appropriate use and limits on placebo, the right to post-trial access to placebo arm participants, and the use of an active control for subsequent Phase-3 trials after the approval of other safe and efficacious vaccines. Most importantly, it will emphasise that access to Covid-19 vaccines is a human right, which presupposes the establishment of appropriate ethical standards to ensure universal, equal, and affordable access to healthcare and to vaccines for all, and the imperative need for suspension of patents for products developed for Covid-19. It will consider the role of social determinants that contribute to the severity of Covid-19 and that must be addressed to effectively curb the current syndemic.

This article critically examines how solidarity has been enacted in the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, mainly, but not exclusively, from a United Kingdom perspective.1 Solidaristic strategies are framed in two ways: aspirations to overcome COVID-19 (utopian anthropocentric solidarity); and those that are illusory, incompatible, contradictory, and disrupting of solidaristic ideals (heterotopian solidarity). Solidarity can also be understood more widely from a biocentric perspective (solidarity with all life). In the context of COVID-19 a lack of biocentric solidarity points to a probable cause of the pandemic; where COVID-19, harmless in bats, jumped species as a consequence of closer contact with humans. Solidarity, therefore, is not only expressed in a fight against a viral "enemy" but is also a reminder of human activity that has upset balances within ecosystems.

Access to COVID-19 vaccines has raised concerns globally. Despite calls for solidarity and social justice during the pandemic, vaccine nationalism, stockpiling of limited vaccine supplies by high-income countries and profit-driven strategies of global pharmaceutical manufacturers have brought into sharp focus global health inequities and the plight of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) as they wait in line for restricted tranches of vaccines. Even in high-income countries that received vaccine supplies first, vaccine roll-out globally has been fraught with logistic and ethical challenges. South Africa (SA) is no exception. Flawed global institutional strategies for vaccine distribution and delivery have undermined public procurement platforms, leaving LMICs facing disproportionate shortages necessitating strict criteria for vaccine prioritisation. In anticipation of our first consignment of vaccines, deliberations around phase 1 roll-out were intense and contentious. Although the first phase focuses on healthcare personnel (HCP), the devil is in the detail. Navigating the granularity of prioritising different categories of risk in healthcare sectors in SA is complicated by definitions of risk in personal and occupational contexts. The inequitable public-private divide that characterises the SA health system adds another layer of complexity. Unlike other therapeutic or preventive interventions that are procured independently by the private health sector, COVID-19 vaccine procurement is currently limited to the SA government only, leaving HCP in the private sector dependent on central government allocation. Fair distribution among tertiary, secondary and primary levels of care is another consideration. Taking all these complexities into account, procedural and substantive ethical principles supporting a prioritisation approach are outlined. Within the constraints of suboptimal global health governance, LMICs must optimise progressive distribution of scarce vaccines to HCP at highest risk.

Public health emergencies, such as the current SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic, have led to tragic resource constraints that prevent lives from being saved. This has led to tensions in patient-centered care as the backbone of the system in normal conditions and the same care in emergencies originating in the COVID-19. In this review we address some of the healthcare, organizational and ethical problems that this scenario has caused in primary care such as: cancellation of programmed activities; scarce home care and follow-up of elderly, chronically ill and immobilized patients; shortage of PPE and the exposure to risk of healthcare professionals, and finally the problems associated with telemedicine and telephone attention to patients., (Copyright © 2020 Sociedad Española de Médicos de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN). Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

People living with HIV (PLWH) may be at higher risk for adverse outcomes indirectly associated with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). When comparing responses to questionnaires administered when social distancing and quarantine guidelines were first implemented, we found that PLWH were more likely to have restricted access to medical care, increased financial stress, increased symptoms of anxiety and depression, and increased substance use compared to demographically-similar people without HIV.

Many countries have adopted new triage recommendations for use in the event that intensive care beds become scarce during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to establishing the exact criteria regarding whether treatment for a newly arriving patient shows a sufficient likelihood of success, it is also necessary to ask whether patients already undergoing treatment whose prospects are low should be moved into palliative care if new patients with better prospects arrive. This question has led to divergent ethical guidelines. This paper explores the distinction between withholding and withdrawing medical treatment during times of scarcity. As a first central point, the paper argues that a revival of the ethical distinction between doing and allowing would have a revisionary impact on cases of voluntary treatment withdrawal. A second systematic focus lies in the concern that withdrawal due to scarcity might be considered a physical transgression and therefore more problematic than not treating someone in the first place. In light of the persistent disagreement, especially concerning the second issue, the paper concludes with two pragmatic proposals for how to handle the ethical uncertainty: (1) triage protocols should explicitly require that intensive care attempts are designed as time-limited trials based on specified treatment goals, and this intent should be documented very clearly at the beginning of each treatment; and (2) lower survival prospects can be accepted for treatments that have already begun, compared with the respective triage rules for the initial access of patients to intensive care., (© 2020 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)