Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Covid‐19 pandemic has highlighted many of the difficult ethical issues that health care professionals confront in caring for patients and families. The decisions such workers face on the front lines are fraught with uncertainty for all stakeholders. Our focus is on the implications for nurses, who are the largest global health care workforce but whose perspectives are not always fully considered. This essay discusses three overarching ethical issues that create a myriad of concerns and will likely affect nurses globally in unique ways: the safety of nurses, patients, colleagues, and families; the allocation of scarce resources; and the changing nature of nurses’ relationships with patients and families. We urge policy‐makers to ensure that nurses’ voices and perspectives are integrated into both local and global decision‐making so as to minimize the structural injustices many nurses have faced to date. Finally, we urge nurses to seek sources of support throughout this pandemic.

Few novel or emerging infectious diseases have posed such vital ethical challenges so quickly and dramatically as the novel coronavirus SARS‐CoV‐2. The World Health Organization declared a public health emergency of international concern and recently classified Covid‐19 as a worldwide pandemic. As of this writing, the epidemic has not yet peaked in the United States, but community transmission is widespread. President Trump declared a national emergency as fifty governors declared state emergencies. In the coming weeks, hospitals will become overrun, stretched to their capacities. When the health system becomes stretched beyond capacity, how can we ethically allocate scarce health goods and services? How can we ensure that marginalized populations can access the care they need? What ethical duties do we owe to vulnerable people separated from their families and communities? And how do we ethically and legally balance public health with civil liberties?

I was a member of the Massachusetts advisory working group that wrote the Commonwealth’s crisis standards of care guidance for the Covid-19 pandemic, and I was proud of the work we did, thinking carefully about whether age should matter and whether priority should be given to essential workers if there was a scarcity of medical resources, about whether protocols should address issues of structural racism, and so forth. But as a critical care physician, I have concluded that, no matter how sophisticated the ethical analysis, the fundamental approach we proposed was flawed and virtually impossible to implement. All the existing allocation protocols that states developed are based on the assumption that clinicians will be faced with the task of selecting which patients will be offered a ventilator from among a population of patients who are each in need of one. The protocols then assign patients a priority category, and the protocols specify “tie-breaking” criteria to be used when necessary. The problem with this approach for ventilator allocation is that it has no relationship whatsoever to what happens in the real world.

Is age discrimination ethically objectionable? One puzzle is that we sometimes assume that the target of both age discrimination and ageism must be older people, yet in poorer nations, older people are generally shown more respect. This article explores the ethical question. It looks first at ethical arguments favoring age discrimination toward younger people in low‐income, less industrialized countries of the global South, using sub‐Saharan Africa as an illustration. It contrasts these with arguments favoring age discrimination toward older people in high‐income, more industrialized countries of the global North, particularly the United States and United Kingdom. Finally, it considers what role, if any, differences in life expectancy, infant and child mortality, and prospects for healthy lives should play in the moral embrace of a particular view by a community. It argues that there can be reasons to favor different types of discrimination in different parts of the world.

The September-October 2021 issue of the Hastings Center Report highlights the important topic of allocating scarce critical care resources during the Covid-19 pandemic. The article by Alex Rajczi and colleagues urges that policy-makers use public reasoning, not private reasoning, when developing triage policies. We completely agree. We show how the allocation framework we developed as private scholars, the “Pittsburgh framework,” has been supported by public reasoning. The article by MaryKatherine Gaurke and colleagues criticizes rationing based on maximizing life-years saved and mistakenly claims that our framework recommended this approach. We explain that our framework never contained such a criterion but instead included a more limited consideration of near-term prognosis. In December 2020, in response to emerging data and important criticisms, we modified our framework to further strengthen equity. We are committed to improving allocation guidelines during crisis standards of care through reflective discussions and debates.

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, debates have waged about “crisis standards of care” (“CSC”)—the guidelines for the allocation of resources if those resources are too scarce to meet the needs of all patients. The Hastings Center Report’s September-October 2021 issue features a collection of pieces on this debate. In the lead article, MaryKatherine Gaurke and colleagues object to the idea that the allocation of scarce resources should aim to save the most “life-years,” arguing instead that the objective should be to save the most lives. Gaurke et al. assert that it is only theorists who have favored the life-years strategy; the public has not—or at least, there is no good evidence that the public has. This claim is elaborated in the article by Alex Rajczi and colleagues, who argue that identifying and applying the public’s will—a process they call “political reasoning”—is the core work in developing CSC. Five commentaries—two coauthored, by Douglas B. White and Bernardo Lo and by Anuj B. Mehta and Matthew K. Wynia, and three solo authored, by Govind Persad, Virginia A. Brown, and Robert D. Truog—offer further arguments about and insights into CSC.

As we write, U.S. cities and states with extensive community transmission of Covid‐19 are in harm's way—not only because of the disease itself but also because of prior and current failures to act. During the 2009 influenza pandemic, public health agencies and hospitals developed but never adequately implemented preparedness plans. Focused on efficiency in a competitive market, health systems had few incentives to maintain stockpiles of essential medical equipment. Just‐in‐time economic models resulted in storage of only those supplies needed then. At the same time, global purchasing in search of lower prices reduced the number of U.S. suppliers, with hospitals dependent on foreign companies. There is still a possibility that the pandemic will be manageably bad rather than unmanageably catastrophic in this country. Immediate, powerful, and sustained federal action could make the difference.

As I organize a pile of ethics consult chart notes in New York City in mid‐April 2020, I look at the ten cases that I have co‐consulted on recently. Nine of the patients were found to be Covid positive. The reasons for the consults are mostly familiar—surrogate decision‐making, informed refusal of treatment, goals of care, defining futility. But the context is unfamiliar and unsettling. Bioethicists are in pandemic mode, dusting off and revising triage plans. Patients and potential patients are fearful—of the disease itself and of the amplification of health disparities and inequities. There is much to contemplate, but as I go through my cases, I worry about disability, about biases and racist stereotypes. In this pandemic, historically marginalized communities are at risk of further disenfranchisement.

Where the number of authorizations available for grant is limited in advance to a maximum number, public authorities have to make a choice between qualified applicants through a selection procedure. EU law has played a major role in developing legal rules on the issuing of these limited authorizations, through, amongst other methods, the development of the obligation of transparency. However, the allocation regime under EU law, in particular as it arises from the internal market freedoms, has some inherent restrictions, only applying to economic activities and sometimes requiring cross-border interest in addition. Thus, in order to develop a general legal regime that applies to any process for the issuing of limited authorizations, the development of an allocation regime rooted in domestic law is necessary. This article discusses recent developments in Dutch case law, where a domestic allocation regime has been derived from the (national) principle of equal treatment. It endorses the adoption of this principle as the central basis for an allocation regime, rooted either in domestic or in EU law, since this principle does not only include the key issues inherent to an allocation context, but also allows for the development of allocation rules at the level of both individual decision-making and general rule-making.

Although widespread support favors prospective planning for altered standards of care during mass casualty events, the literature includes few, if any, accounts of groups that have formally addressed the overarching policy considerations at the state level. We describe the planning process undertaken by public health officials in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, along with community and academic partners, to explore the issues surrounding altered standards of care in the event of pandemic influenza. Throughout 2006, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Harvard School of Public Health Center for Public Health Preparedness jointly convened a working group comprising ethicists, lawyers, clinicians, and local and state public health officials to consider issues such as allocation of antiviral medications, prioritization of critical care, and state seizure of private assets. Community stakeholders were also engaged in the process through facilitated discussion of case scenarios focused on these and other issues. The objective of this initiative was to establish a framework and some fundamental principles that would subsequently guide the process of establishing specific altered standards of care protocols. The group collectively identified 4 goals and 7 principles to guide the equitable allocation of limited resources and establishment of altered standards of care protocols. Reviewing and analyzing this process to date may serve as a resource for other states. ( Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness . 2009;3(Suppl 2):S132–S140)