Leider Jonathon P, DeBruin Debra, Reynolds Nicole, Koch Angelica, Seaberg Judy
Jonathon P. Leider is with the Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. Debra DeBruin and Nicole Reynolds are with the Center for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Angelica Koch and Judy Seaberg are with the Center for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Minnesota Department of Health, St Paul.
Am J Public Health. 2017 Sep;107(9):e1-e9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303882. Epub 2017 Jul 20.
Terrorism, disease outbreaks, and other natural disasters and mass casualty events have pushed health care and public health systems to identify and refine emergency preparedness protocols for disaster response. Ethical guidance, alongside legal and medical frameworks, are increasingly common components of disaster response plans.
To systematically review the prevalence and content of ethical guidance offered for disaster response, specifically around crisis standards of care (CSCs).
We systematically indexed academic literature from PubMed, Google Scholar, and ISI Web of Science from 2012 to 2016.
We searched for peer-reviewed articles that substantively engaged in discussion of ethical guidance for CSCs.
Researchers screened potential articles for identification and discussion of ethical issues in CSC planning. We categorized and cataloged ethical concepts and principles.
Of 580 peer-reviewed articles mentioning ethics and CSCs or disaster planning, 38 (6%) met selection criteria. The systematic review of the CSC ethics literature since 2012 showed that authors were primarily focused on the ethical justifications for CSC (n = 20) as well as a need for ethics guidelines for implementing CSCs; the ethical justifications for triage (n = 19), both as to which criteria to use and the appropriate processes by which to employ triage; and international issues (n = 17). In addition to these areas of focus, the scholarly literature included discussion of a number of other ethical issues, including duty to care (n = 11), concepts of a duty to plan (n = 8), utilitarianism (n = 5), moral distress (n = 4), professional norms (n = 3), reciprocity (n = 2), allocation criteria (n = 4), equity (n = 4), research ethics (n = 2), duty to steward resources (n = 2), social utility and social worth (n = 2), and a number of others (n = 20). Although public health preparedness efforts have paid increasing attention to CSCs in recent years, CSC plans have rarely been implemented within the United States to date, although some components are common (e.g., triage is used in US emergency departments regularly). Conversely, countries outside the United States more commonly implement CSCs within a natural disaster or humanitarian crisis response, and may offer significant insight into ethics and disaster response for US-based practitioners.
This systematic review identifies the most oft-used and -discussed ethical concepts and principles used in disaster planning around CSCs. Although discussion of more nuanced issues (e.g., health equity) are present, the majority of items substantively engaging in ethical discussion around disaster planning do so regarding triage and why ethics is needed in disaster response generally. Public health implications. A significant evolution in disaster planning has occurred within the past decade; ethical theories and frameworks have been put to work. For ethical guidance to be useful, it must be practical and implementable. Although high-level, abstract frameworks were once prevalent in disaster planning-especially in the early days of pandemic planning-concerns about the ethically difficult concept of CSCs pervade scholarly articles. Ethical norms must be clearly stated and justified and practical guidelines ought to follow from them. Ethical frameworks should guide clinical protocols, but this requires that ethical analysis clarifies what strategies to use to honor ethical commitments and achieve ethical objectives. Such implementation issues must be considered well ahead of a disaster. As governments and health care systems plan for mass casualty events, ethical guidance that is theoretically sound and practically useful can-and should-form an important foundation from which to build practical guidance for responding to disasters with morally appropriate means.
恐怖主义、疾病爆发以及其他自然灾害和大规模伤亡事件促使医疗保健和公共卫生系统去识别并完善灾难应对的应急准备预案。道德指导与法律和医学框架一样,日益成为灾难应对计划的常见组成部分。
系统回顾针对灾难应对所提供的道德指导的流行程度和内容,特别是围绕危机护理标准(CSCs)的内容。
我们系统检索了2012年至2016年来自PubMed、谷歌学术和科学信息研究所(ISI)网络数据库的学术文献。
我们搜索了对CSCs道德指导进行实质性讨论的同行评议文章。
研究人员筛选潜在文章,以识别和讨论CSC规划中的道德问题。我们对道德概念和原则进行了分类和编目。
在580篇提及道德与CSCs或灾难规划的同行评议文章中,38篇(6%)符合选择标准。对2012年以来CSC道德文献的系统回顾表明,作者主要关注CSC的道德依据(n = 20)以及实施CSCs的道德准则需求;分诊的道德依据(n = 19),包括使用哪些标准以及采用分诊的适当流程;以及国际问题(n = 17)。除了这些重点领域,学术文献还包括对许多其他道德问题的讨论,包括护理责任(n = 11)、规划责任概念(n = 8)、功利主义(n = 5)、道德困扰(n = 4)、专业规范(n = 3)、互惠(n = 2)、分配标准(n = 4)、公平(n = 4)、研究伦理(n = 2)、资源管理责任(n = 2)、社会效用和社会价值(n = 2)以及其他一些问题(n = 20)。尽管近年来公共卫生应急准备工作越来越关注CSCs,但迄今为止,CSC计划在美国很少得到实施,尽管一些组成部分很常见(例如,分诊在美国急诊科经常使用)。相反,美国以外的国家在自然灾害或人道主义危机应对中更普遍地实施CSCs,并且可能为美国的从业者提供有关道德与灾难应对的重要见解。
本系统回顾确定了在围绕CSCs的灾难规划中最常使用和讨论的道德概念和原则。尽管存在对更细微问题(如健康公平)的讨论,但大多数实质性参与围绕灾难规划的道德讨论的文章是关于分诊以及灾难应对中为何需要道德的讨论。公共卫生影响。在过去十年中,灾难规划发生了重大演变;道德理论和框架已付诸实践。为使道德指导有用,它必须切实可行且可实施。尽管高层次、抽象的框架曾经在灾难规划中普遍存在——尤其是在大流行规划的早期——但对CSCs这一道德难题概念的担忧在学术文章中普遍存在。道德规范必须明确阐述并说明理由,并且应该从中得出实用指南。道德框架应该指导临床方案,但这要求道德分析阐明使用哪些策略来履行道德承诺并实现道德目标。此类实施问题必须在灾难发生前就充分考虑。当政府和医疗保健系统为大规模伤亡事件制定计划时,理论上合理且实际有用的道德指导能够而且应该成为一个重要基础,据此构建以道德适当方式应对灾难的实用指南。