The current outbreak of Ebola virus infection in West Africa continues to spread. Several patients have now been treated in the United States and preparations are being made for more. Because of the strict isolation required for their care, questions have been raised about what diagnostic and therapeutic interventions should be available. I discuss the ethical challenges associated with caring for patients in strict isolation and personnel wearing bulky protective gear with reduced dexterity and flexibility, the limitations this may place (...) on available treatments and the permissibility of consequent departures from the standards of care. Restricting access to some interventions such as surgery requiring an operating room, advanced imaging, etc. is reasonable due to concern for protecting other patients, visitors and staff. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a special case and the implications for withholding this intervention in situations where it may be desired is discussed, especially with respect to those patients who have suspected, but not proven, infection. These same restrictions are also considered under conditions where there are scarce resources and thus limited numbers of patients may receive care. While it is to be hoped that there is only limited and sporadic infection with Ebola virus in the US, careful thought must be given to the care of these patients under the unusual circumstances demanded by their isolation. I argue that an altered standard of care is reasonable and ethically acceptable under certain conditions. (shrink)

According to the widely accepted principles of beneficence and distributive justice, I argue that healthcare providers and facilities have an ethical duty to reduce the ecological footprint of the services they provide. I also address the question of whether the reductions in footprint need or should be patient-facing. I review Andrew Jameton and Jessica Pierce’s claim that achieving ecological sustainability in the healthcare sector requires rationing the treatment options offered to patients. I present a number of reasons to think that (...) we should not ration health care to achieve sufficient reductions in a society’s overall consumption of ecological goods. Moreover, given the complexities of ecological rationing, I argue that there are good reasons to think that the ethical duty to reduce the ecological footprint of health care should focus on only nonpatient-facing changes. I review a number of case studies of hospitals who have successfully retrofitted facilities to make them more efficient and reduced their resource and waste streams. (shrink)

ObjectiveTo increase knowledge of how doctors perceive futile treatments and scarcity of resources at the end of life. In particular, their perceptions about whether and how resource limitations influence end-of-life decision making. This study builds on previous work that found some doctors include resource limitations in their understanding of the concept of futility.SettingThree tertiary hospitals in metropolitan Brisbane, Australia.DesignQualitative study using in-depth, semistructured, face-to-face interviews. Ninety-six doctors were interviewed in 11 medical specialties. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed using thematic (...) analysis.ResultsDoctors’ perceptions of whether resource limitations were relevant to their practice varied, and doctors were more comfortable with explicit rather than implicit rationing. Several doctors incorporated resource limitations into their definition of futility. For some, availability of resources was one factor of many in assessing futility, secondary to patient considerations, but a few doctors indicated that the concept of futility concealed rationing. Doctors experienced moral distress due to the resource implications of providing futile treatment and the lack of administrative supports for bedside rationing.ConclusionsDoctors’ ability to distinguish between futility and rationing would be enhanced through regulatory support for explicit rationing and strategies to support doctors’ role in rationing at the bedside. Medical policies should address the distinction between resource limitations and futility to promote legitimacy in end-of-life decision making. (shrink)