What are the views of Quebec and Ontario citizens on the tiebreaker criteria for prioritizing access to adult critical care in the extreme context of a COVID-19 pandemic?

BMC Medical Ethics 25 (1):1-14 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Background The prioritization protocols for accessing adult critical care in the extreme pandemic context contain tiebreaker criteria to facilitate decision-making in the allocation of resources between patients with a similar survival prognosis. Besides being controversial, little is known about the public acceptability of these tiebreakers. In order to better understand the public opinion, Quebec and Ontario’s protocols were presented to the public in a democratic deliberation during the summer of 2022. Objectives (1) To explore the perspectives of Quebec and Ontario citizens regarding tiebreakers, identifying the most acceptable ones and their underlying values. (2) To analyze these results considering other public consultations held during the pandemic on these criteria. Methods This was an exploratory qualitative study. The design involved an online democratic deliberation that took place over two days, simultaneously in Quebec and Ontario. Public participants were selected from a community sample which excluded healthcare workers. Participants were first presented the essential components of prioritization protocols and their related issues (training session day 1). They subsequently deliberated on the acceptability of these criteria (deliberation session day 2). The deliberation was then subject to thematic analysis. Results A total of 47 participants from the provinces of Quebec (n = 20) and Ontario (n = 27) took part in the online deliberation. A diverse audience participated excluding members of the healthcare workforce. Four themes were identified: (1) Priority to young patients - the life cycle - a preferred tiebreaker; (2) Randomization - a tiebreaker of last resort; (3) Multiplier effect of most exposed healthcare workers - a median acceptability tiebreaker, and (4) Social value – a less acceptable tiebreaker. Conclusion Life cycle was the preferred tiebreaker as this criterion respects intergenerational equity, which was considered relevant when allocating scarce resources to adult patients in a context of extreme pandemic. Priority to young patients is in line with other consultations conducted around the world. Additional studies are needed to further investigate the public acceptability of tiebreaker criteria.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,829

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A comparison of two recent views on theories.Erhard Scheibe - 1982 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 3 (2):233-253.
Voluntary sterilisation and access to IVF in Québec.Katharine Browne - 2018 - Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (4):262-265.
Why good work in philosophical bioethics often looks strange.Ole Martin Moen - 2023 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 44 (2):153-164.
Conscientious Objection to Medical Assistance in Dying: A Qualitative Study with Quebec Physicians.Jocelyn Maclure - 2019 - Canadian Journal of Bioethics / Revue canadienne de bioéthique 2 (2):110-134.
The Case for Human Challenge Trials in COVID-19.George P. Drewett - 2024 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 21 (1):151-165.

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-03-21

Downloads
18 (#831,783)

6 months
18 (#141,285)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?