The ethics of providing health care in resource-poor environments is a complex topic. It implies two related questions: What can we do with the resources on hand? Of all the things we can do, which ones should we do? “Resource-poor” environments are situations in which clinicians, organizations, or healthcare systems have the knowledge and skills, but not the means, to carry out highly effective and beneficial interventions. Determinants of a population’s health often rely less on disease and injury management than (...) on recognizing and meeting their basic needs. Many of the world’s people with the greatest health problems live in fragile contexts and remote areas. Their access to food, safe water, personal safety, improved sanitation facilities, and health care remains elusive, with availability often based on socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, or geography. Of course, ethical international healthcare work also requires an understanding of the illnesses and injuries that most frequently plague the population. To function ethically and to know both what can and what should be done with available resources, individuals and organizations involved in international healthcare must be experienced, adaptable, culturally sensitive, inspired, situationally aware, beneficent, courageous, honest, and fair. (shrink)

The ethics of providing health care in resource-poor environments is a complex topic. It implies two related questions: What can we do with the resources on hand? Of all the things we can do, which ones should we do? “Resource-poor” environments are situations in which clinicians, organizations, or healthcare systems have the knowledge and skills, but not the means, to carry out highly effective and beneficial interventions. Determinants of a population’s health often rely less on disease and injury management than (...) on recognizing and meeting their basic needs. Many of the world’s people with the greatest health problems live in fragile contexts and remote areas. Their access to food, safe water, personal safety, improved sanitation facilities, and health care remains elusive, with availability often based on socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, or geography. Of course, ethical international healthcare work also requires an understanding of the illnesses and injuries that most frequently plague the population. To function ethically and to know both what can and what should be done with available resources, individuals and organizations involved in international healthcare must be experienced, adaptable, culturally sensitive, inspired, situationally aware, beneficent, courageous, honest, and fair. (shrink)

The world awaits a SARS-CoV-2 virus vaccine to keep the populace healthy, fully reopen their economies, and return their social and healthcare systems to “normal.” Vaccine safety and efficacy requires meticulous testing and oversight; this paper describes how despite grandiose public statements, the current vaccine development, testing, and production methods may prove to be ethically dubious, medically dangerous, and socially volatile. The basic moral concern is the potential danger to the health of human test subjects and, eventually, many vaccine recipients. (...) This is further complicated by economic and political pressures to reduce government oversight on rushed vaccine testing and production, nationalistic distribution goals, and failure to plan for the widespread immunization needed to produce global herd immunity. As this paper asserts, the public must be better informed to assess promises about the novel vaccines being produced and to tolerate delays and uncertainty. (shrink)

Approximately 400,000 people die outside US hospitals or chronic care facilities each year. While there has been some recent movement towards initiating procedures for prehospital Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, the most common situation in the US is that emergency medical systems (EMS) personnel are not authorized to pronounce patients dead, but are required to attempt resuscitation with all of the modalities at their disposal in virtually all patients. It is unfair and probably unrealistic for EMS personnel to have to (...) make a determination of the validity of a non-standard prehospital DNR order (for example, a living will or a durable power of attorney for health care). Existing prehospital DNR protocols range from being very restrictive in the scope of patients allowed to participate and in their implementation, to those that are more liberal. Potential benefits of prehospital DNR orders include freeing up vital personnel and material for use by those who would more fully benefit, and alleviating the enormous emotional strain on patients, families, EMS personnel, and hospital medical staffs involved in unwanted resuscitations that only prolong the dying process. Given this, prehospital DNR orders present several legal and moral problems. These include proper patient identification, the nature of the document itself, precautions incorporated into a DNR system to prevent misuse, potential liability for EMS and hospital personnel, and potential errors in implementation. Functioning prehospital DNR systems need to include: 1) specific legislation detailing the circumstances in which such a document could be used, the wording of such a document, and protection from liability for those implementing the document's directives; 2) having the currently valid document immediately available to the EMS personnel or base station doctors; and 3) acceptable means of identifying the patient. Relatively few US jurisdictions as yet have a prehospital DNR order system, although it is an idea whose time is overdue. Society's imperative to use available technology has pushed us into a situation where a technique to save those with a potential to continue a meaningful and wanted existence is being used indiscriminately to prolong the agony of death. (shrink)

In generations past, it was common practice for doctors to learn lifesaving technical skills on patients who had recently died. But this practice has lately been criticised on religious, legal, and ethical grounds, and has fallen into disuse in many hospitals and emergency departments. This paper uses four questions to resolve whether doctors in emergency departments should practise and teach non-invasive and minimally invasive procedures on the newly dead: Is it ethically and legally permissible to practise and teach non-invasive and (...) minimally invasive procedures on the newly dead emergency-department patient? What are the alternatives or possible consequences of not practising non-invasive and minimally invasive procedures on newly dead patients? Is consent from relatives required? Should doctors in emergency departments allow or even encourage this use of newly dead patients? (shrink)

In situations with limited medical resources, be they personnel, equipment, or time, clinicians use “triage” to determine which patients receive treatment. What type of treatment a patient receives depends on the triage “lottery” rules in place. Although these rules for sorting patients and distributing resources are standardized for most situations, they must be somewhat altered after overwhelming, nonstandard disasters.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editor Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editor Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editor Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will igve you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to feature editor Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

This section is meant to be a mutual effort. If you find an article you think should be abstracted in this section, do not be bashful—submit it for consideration to Kenneth V. Iserson care of CQ. If you do not like the editorial comments, this will give you an opportunity to respond in the letters section. Your input is desired and anticipated.

This paper describes the Antarctic environment, the mission and work setting at the U.S. research stations, the general population and living conditions, and the healthcare situation. It also dispels some common misconceptions that persist about this environment and about the scope and quality of medicine practiced there. The paper then describes specific ethical issues that arise in this environment, incorporating examples drawn from both the author’s experiences and those of his colleagues. The ethics of providing healthcare in resource-poor environments implies (...) two related questions. The first is: What can we do with the available resources? This suggests that clinicians must not only know how to use all available equipment and supplies in the standard manner, but also that they must be willing and able to go beyond standard procedures and improvise, when necessary. The second question is: Of all the things we can do, which ones should we do? This paper addresses both questions in relation to Antarctic medical care. It describes the wide range of activities required of healthcare providers and some specific ethical issues that arise. Finally, it suggests some remedies to ameliorate some of those issues. (shrink)

Magical thinking, distortions of reality based on fantasy, are pervasive in society and may influence patients’ healthcare decisions. These distortions can “nudge” people to make decisions using System 1 thinking (a heuristic and error-prone decisional pathway that is always “on”), rather than a slower, deliberative, and more labor-intensive process that evaluates evidence (System 2). Physicians have been castigated for subtly nudging their patients toward evidence-based decisions. Yet when patients demonstrate magical thinking in their decision making, physicians have a professional responsibility (...) to do more than nudge; they should shove patients toward decisions that will most likely achieve the healthcare goals they seek. (shrink)