Explore the vast range of titles available.

Of all the medical care that will have to be rationed during the Covid-19 pandemic, the most problematic will be mechanical ventilation. One strategy for avoiding debilitating distress over these decisions is to use a triage committee to buffer bedside clinicians.

Physicians in northern Italy have learned some painful lessons about rationing care during an epidemic. As health care systems work out ethical allocation principles, it seems clear that only with transparency and inclusivity can public trust and cooperation be achieved.

Medical factors of triage recommendations typically contain exclusion criteria, a mortality assessment (e.g., Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score), and a re-evaluation requirement [2]. To the extent that it is unavoidable that physicians “have to decide who must die and whom (they) shall keep alive” [3], this should not happen without clear criteria that result from a consensus process of professional associations, a team approach to decision-making, and the offer of psychological support [9]. In order to claim moral legitimacy, the prioritization process must be transparent, inclusive (allowing for participation of all those who may be affected by decisions resulting from the process), evidence-based, and revisable in the light of new information or arguments [8].

In critically ill patients, it is frequently challenging to identify who will benefit from admission to the intensive care unit and life-sustaining interventions when the chances of a meaningful outcome are unclear. In addition, the acute illness not only affects the patients but also family members or surrogates who often are overwhelmed and unable to make thoughtful decisions. In these circumstances, a time-limited trial (TLT) of intensive care treatment can be helpful. A TLT is an agreement to initiate all necessary treatments or treatments with clearly delineated limitations for a certain period of time to gain a more realistic understanding of the patient’s chances of a meaningful recovery or to ascertain the patient’s wishes and values. In this article, we discuss current research on different aspects of TLTs in the intensive care unit. We propose how and when to use TLTs, discuss how much time should be taken for a TLT, give an overview of the potential impact of TLTs on healthcare resources, describe ethical challenges concerning TLTs, and discuss how to evaluate a TLT.

Key ethical challenges for healthcare workers arising from the COVID-19 pandemic are identified: isolation and social distancing, duty of care and fair access to treatment. The paper argues for a relational approach to ethics which includes solidarity, relational autonomy, duty, equity, trust and reciprocity as core values. The needs of the poor and socially disadvantaged are highlighted. Relational autonomy and solidarity are explored in relation to isolation and social distancing. Reciprocity is discussed with reference to healthcare workers’ duty of care and its limits. Priority setting and access to treatment raise ethical issues of utility and equity. Difficult ethical dilemmas around triage, do not resuscitate decisions, and withholding and withdrawing treatment are discussed in the light of recently published guidelines. The paper concludes with the hope for a wider discussion of relational ethics and a glimpse of a future after the pandemic has subsided.

This paper puts forward a wish list of requirements for formal fairness in the specific context of triage in emergency departments (EDs) and maps the empirical and conceptual research questions that need to be addressed in this context in the near future. The pandemic has brought to the fore the necessity for public debate about how to allocate resources fairly in a situation of great shortage. However, issues of fairness arise also outside of pandemics: decisions about how to allocate resources are structurally unavoidable in healthcare systems, as value judgements underlie every allocative decision, although they are not always easily identifiable. In this paper, we set out to bridge this gap in the context of EDs. In the first part, we propose five formal requirements specifically applied for ED triage to be considered fair and legitimate: publicity, accessibility, relevance, standardisability and accountability. In the second part of the paper, we map the conceptual and empirical ethics questions that will need to be investigated to assess whether healthcare systems guarantee a formally just ED triage. In conclusion, we argue that there is a vast research landscape in need of an in-depth conceptual and empirical investigation in the context of ED triage in ordinary times. Addressing both types of questions in this context is vital for promoting a fair and legitimate ED triage and for fostering reflection on formal fairness allocative issues beyond triage.

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated an imbalance between the clinical needs of the population and the effective availability of advanced life support (ALS) resources. Triage protocols have thus become necessary. Triage decisions in situations of scarce resources were not extraordinary in the pre-COVID-19 era; these protocols abounded in the context of organ transplantation. However, this prior experience was not considered during the COVID-19 outbreak in Spain. Lacking national guidance or public coordination, each hospital has been forced to put forth independent and autonomous triage protocols, most of which were, nonetheless, based on common ethical principles and clinical criteria. However, controversial, non-clinical criteria have also been defended by Spanish scientific societies and public institutions, including setting an age cut-off value for unilaterally withholding ALS, using ‘social utility’ criteria, prioritising healthcare professionals or using ‘first come, first served’ policies. This paper describes the most common triage criteria used in the Spanish context during the COVID-19 epidemic. We will highlight our missed opportunities by comparing these criteria to those used in organ transplantation protocols. The problems posed by subjective, non-clinical criteria will also be discussed. We hope that this critical review might be of use to countries at earlier stages of the epidemic while we learn from our mistakes.

We present the TRIAGE benchmark, a novel machine ethics benchmark designed to evaluate the ethical decision-making abilities of large language models (LLMs) in mass casualty scenarios. TRIAGE uses medical dilemmas created by healthcare professionals to evaluate the ethical decision-making of AI systems in real-world, high-stakes scenarios. We evaluated six major LLMs on TRIAGE, examining how different ethical and adversarial prompts influence model behavior. Our results show that most models consistently outperformed random guessing, with open source models making more serious ethical errors than proprietary models. Providing guiding ethical principles to LLMs degraded performance on TRIAGE, which stand in contrast to results from other machine ethics benchmarks where explicating ethical principles improved results. Adversarial prompts significantly decreased accuracy. By demonstrating the influence of context and ethical framing on the performance of LLMs, we provide critical insights into the current capabilities and limitations of AI in high-stakes ethical decision making in medicine.

Background The worsening COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa poses multiple challenges for clinical decision making in the context of already-scarce ICU resources. Data from national government and the last published national audit of ICU resources indicate gross shortages. While the Critical Care Society of Southern Africa (CCSSA) guidelines provide a comprehensive guideline for triage in the face of overwhelmed ICU resources, such decisions present massive ethical and moral dilemmas for triage teams. It is therefore important for the health system to provide clinicians and critical care facilities with as much support and resources as possible in the face of impending pandemic demand. Following a discussion of the ethical considerations and potential challenges in applying the CCSSA guidelines, the authors propose a framework for regional triage committees adapted to the South African context. Discussion Beyond the national CCSSA guidelines, the clinician has many additional ethical and clinical considerations. No single ethical approach to decision-making is sufficient, instead one which considers multiple contextual factors is necessary. Scores such as the Clinical Frailty Score and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment are of limited use in patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, the clinician is fully justified in withdrawing ICU care based on medical futility decisions and to reallocate this resource to a patient with a better prognosis. However, these decisions bear heavy emotional and moral burden compounded by the volume of clinical work and a fear of litigation. Conclusion We propose the formation of Provincial multi-disciplinary Critical Care Triage Committees to alleviate the emotional, moral and legal burden on individual ICU teams and co-ordinate inter-facility collaboration using an adapted framework. The committee would provide an impartial, broader and ethically-sound viewpoint which has time to consider broader contextual factors such as adjusting rationing criteria according to different levels of pandemic demand and the latest clinical evidence. Their functioning will be strengthened by direct feedback to national level and accountability to a national monitoring committee. The potential applications of these committees are far-reaching and have the potential to enable a more effective COVID-19 health systems response in South Africa.

COVID-19 triage protocols are resource allocation processes to deal with the potential lack of resources in Intensive Care Units (ICU). They have given rise to numerous ethical issues and controversies. Among them is the fear that people will be denied access to ICU on the basis of judgments about their quality of life, social value, frailty or age. This online Democratic Deliberation (DD) with members of the public aimed to discover the necessary considerations and conditions that make triage protocols more acceptable to guide future decisions in terms of the values and criteria that must underpin triage protocols. We simultaneously conducted the online DD in Quebec and Ontario on May 28th and June 4th, 2022, among adults who do not work in the healthcare sector, recruited randomly among the members of the public registered on Leger Opinion poll website to favor sociodemographic diversity. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Among the participants who took part in the study, 27 participants were from Ontario and 20 from Quebec. Three main themes emerged: 1) Acceptance of the protocol and values, 2) Considerations to be integrated in triage protocols, 3) Conditions which may favor a greater public acceptance of these protocols. Participants supported the idea of prioritizing patients with the best prognosis of survival under extreme conditions. The maximization of benefits was the most predominant approach. Participants considered that triage protocols are necessary to reduce arbitrariness in decision making and to facilitate these tragic decisions by health professionals.