2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      La controversia bioética sobre el triaje durante la pandemia de la COVID-19 Translated title: La controvèrsia bioètica sobre el triatge durant la pandèmia de la COVID-19 Translated title: The bioethical controversy over triage during the COVID-19 pandemic

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Resumen La pandemia de la COVID-19 ha puesto en crisis a los sistemas públicos de salud con el aumento acelerado de ingresos a los servicios de urgencias y unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCI). Esta demanda de atención crítica en situación de emergencia sanitaria mundial ha suscitado la necesidad de aplicar métodos de triaje para seleccionar a las personas que tengan más probabilidades de sobrevivir con mejor calidad de vida y años de supervivencia. Sin embargo, las difíciles decisiones sobre el triaje no son una cuestión meramente médica, sino una decisión bioética que implica tomar en cuenta otros criterios sociales para seleccionar justa y equitativamente a las personas. Estas decisiones deben ser deliberadas y avaladas por comités hospitalarios de bioética, no deben ser tomadas únicamente por el personal sanitario. Este artículo aborda el problema de manera general y se refiere a la situación en México a partir de algunos datos disponibles. Se cuestiona el uso de métodos aleatorios y de orden de llegada al hospital por no ser los más justos y eficientes en el uso de recursos escasos de medicina crítica durante esta pandemia. Se discute también la viabilidad de emplear, junto con los criterios médicos, los criterios de "utilidad social", algunos de los cuales ya han sido aplicados en casos de listas de espera en trasplantes de órganos, en casos de desempate y para ayudar a una selección más cuidadosa de pacientes con la finalidad de incrementar el número de personas beneficiadas en las UCI y la calidad de vida de las supervivientes.

          Translated abstract

          Resum La pandèmia de la COVID-19 ha posat en crisi als sistemes públics de salut amb l'augment accelerat d'ingressos als serveis d'urgències i unitats de vigilància intensiva (UCI). Aquesta demanda d'atenció crítica en situació d'emergència sanitària mundial ha suscitat la necessitat d'aplicar mètodes de triatge per a seleccionar a les persones que tinguin més probabilitats de sobreviure amb millor qualitat de vida i anys de supervivència. No obstant això, les difícils decisions sobre el triatge no són una qüestió merament mèdica, sinó una decisió bioètica que implica tenir en compte altres criteris socials per a seleccionar justa i equitativament a les persones. Aquestes decisions han de ser deliberades i avalades per comitès hospitalaris de bioètica, no han de ser preses únicament pel personal sanitari. Aquest article aborda el problema de manera general i es refereix a la situació a Mèxic a partir d'algunes dades disponibles. Es qüestiona l'ús de mètodes aleatoris i d'ordre d'arribada a l'hospital per no ser els més justos i eficients en l'ús de recursos escassos de medicina crítica durant aquesta pandèmia. Es discuteix també la viabilitat d'emprar, juntament amb els criteris mèdics, els criteris de "utilitat social", alguns dels quals ja han estat aplicats en casos de llistes d'espera en trasplantaments d'òrgans, en casos de desempat i per a ajudar a una selecció més acurada de pacients amb la finalitat d'incrementar el nombre de persones beneficiades en les UCI i la qualitat de vida de les supervivents.

          Translated abstract

          Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has put public health systems in crisis due to the accelerated increase in admissions to emergency services and intensive care units (ICU). This demand for critical care in a global health emergency has led to the need for triage methods to adequately select the patients most likely to survive the disease with better quality of life and years of survival. However, problematic decisions about triage are not merely a medical matter, but a bioethical decision that involves considering other social criteria to select patients fairly and equitably. These decisions must be deliberate and endorsed by hospital bioethics committees, they should not be taken solely by the health personnel in charge. This article addresses the problem in a general way and refers to the situation in Mexico, based on available data. The use of random and first-come arrival methods at the hospital is questioned for not being the fairest and most efficient in the use of scarce critical medicine resources during this pandemic. It also discusses the feasibility of using, together with medical criteria, the criteria of "social utility", some of which have already been applied in cases of waiting lists in organ transplants, in cases of tie-breaking and to help a more careful selection of patients to increase the number of people benefited in the ICU and the quality of life of the survivors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Utilitarianism and the Pandemic

          Abstract There are no egalitarians in a pandemic. The scale of the challenge for health systems and public policy means that there is an ineluctable need to prioritise the needs of the many. It is impossible to treat all citizens equally, and a failure to carefully consider the consequences of actions could lead to massive preventable loss of life. In a pandemic there is a strong ethical need to consider how to do most good overall. Utilitarianism is an influential moral theory which states that the right action is the action which is expected to produce the greatest good. It offers clear operationalizable principles. In this paper we provide a summary of how utilitarianism could inform two challenging questions that have been important in the early phase of the pandemic: Triage: which patients should receive access to a ventilator if there is overwhelming demand outstripping supply? Lockdown: How should countries decide when to implement stringent social restrictions, balancing preventing deaths from COVID‐19 with causing deaths and reducing in wellbeing from other causes? Our aim is not to argue that utilitarianism is the only relevant ethical theory, or in favour of a purely utilitarian approach. However, clearly considering which options will do the most good overall will help societies identify and consider the necessary cost of other values. Societies may choose either to embrace or not to embrace the utilitarian course, but with a clear understanding of the values involved and the price they are willing to pay.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Recommendations on COVID‐19 triage: international comparison and ethical analysis

            Abstract On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization classified COVID‐19, caused by Sars‐CoV‐2, as a pandemic. Although not much was known about the new virus, the first outbreaks in China and Italy showed that potentially a large number of people worldwide could fall critically ill in a short period of time. A shortage of ventilators and intensive care resources was expected in many countries, leading to concerns about restrictions of medical care and preventable deaths. In order to be prepared for this challenging situation, national triage guidance has been developed or adapted from former influenza pandemic guidelines in an increasing number of countries over the past few months. In this article, we provide a comparative analysis of triage recommendations from selected national and international professional societies, including Australia/New Zealand, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Pakistan, South Africa, Switzerland, the United States, and the International Society of Critical Care Medicine. We describe areas of consensus, including the importance of prognosis, patient will, transparency of the decision‐making process, and psychosocial support for staff, as well as the role of justice and benefit maximization as core principles. We then probe areas of disagreement, such as the role of survival versus outcome, long‐term versus short‐term prognosis, the use of age and comorbidities as triage criteria, priority groups and potential tiebreakers such as ‘lottery’ or ‘first come, first served’. Having explored a number of tensions in current guidance, we conclude with a suggestion for framework conditions that are clear, consistent and implementable. This analysis is intended to advance the ongoing debate regarding the fair allocation of limited resources and may be relevant for future policy‐making.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Guidance for managing ethical issues in infectious disease outbreaks

              WHO (2016)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                bioetica
                Revista de Bioética y Derecho
                Rev. Bioética y Derecho
                Observatori de Bioètica i Dret - Cátedra UNESCO de Bioética (Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain )
                1886-5887
                2022
                : 56
                : 163-182
                Affiliations
                [1] orgnameUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mexico
                Article
                S1886-58872022000300163 S1886-5887(22)00005600163
                10.1344/rbd2022.56.38674
                5d74ca1e-7282-4ec7-8113-92a89b7b7157

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 10 September 2022
                : 15 February 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 20, Pages: 20
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Sección General

                triaje,COVID-19,controversias bioéticas,pandemias,triatge,controvèrsies bioètiques,pandèmies,triage,pandemics,bioethical controversies

                Comments

                Comment on this article