Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard University T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
J Med Ethics. 2020 Aug;46(8):514-525. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105943. Epub 2020 Jun 19.
Humanitarian crises and emergencies, events often marked by high mortality, have until recently excluded palliative care-a specialty focusing on supporting people with serious or terminal illness or those nearing death. In the COVID-19 pandemic, palliative care has received unprecedented levels of societal attention. Unfortunately, this has not been enough to prevent patients dying alone, relatives not being able to say goodbye and palliative care being used instead of intensive care due to resource limitations. Yet global guidance was available. In 2018, the WHO released a guide on Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises'-the first guidance on the topic by an international body.
This paper argues that while a landmark document, the WHO guide took a narrowly clinical bioethics perspective and missed crucial moral dilemmas. We argue for adding a population-level bioethics lens, which draws forth complex moral dilemmas arising from the fact that groups having differential innate and acquired resources in the context of social and historical determinants of health. We discuss dilemmas concerning: limitations of material and human resources; patient prioritisation; euthanasia; and legacy inequalities, discrimination and power imbalances.
In parts of the world where opportunity for preparation still exists, and as countries emerge from COVID-19, planners must consider care for the dying. Immediate steps to support better resolutions to ethical dilemmas of the provision of palliative care in humanitarian and emergency contexts will require honest debate; concerted research effort; and international, national and local ethical guidance.
人道主义危机和紧急情况通常以高死亡率为标志,直到最近才将姑息治疗纳入其中——姑息治疗是一门专注于支持患有严重或绝症或接近死亡的人的专业。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,姑息治疗受到了前所未有的社会关注。不幸的是,这还不足以防止患者孤独死亡、亲人无法道别,以及由于资源限制而将姑息治疗用于重症监护。然而,全球指南已经可用。2018 年,世界卫生组织发布了一份关于将姑息治疗和症状缓解纳入人道主义紧急情况和危机应对的指南-这是国际组织首次就该主题发布的指南。
本文认为,尽管世界卫生组织的指南是一份具有里程碑意义的文件,但它采取了狭隘的临床生物伦理学视角,错过了关键的道德困境。我们主张加入人口层面的生物伦理学视角,该视角引出了在健康的社会和历史决定因素背景下,由于群体在物质和人力等固有和后天资源方面存在差异而产生的复杂道德困境。我们讨论了有关以下方面的困境:物质和人力资源的限制;患者优先排序;安乐死;以及遗留的不平等、歧视和权力失衡。
在世界上仍有机会进行准备的地区,随着各国摆脱 COVID-19,规划者必须考虑临终关怀。支持在人道主义和紧急情况下提供姑息治疗的伦理困境的更好解决方案的直接措施将需要诚实的辩论;协调一致的研究努力;以及国际、国家和地方的伦理指导。