Hastings Cent Rep. 2020 May;50(3):16-17. doi: 10.1002/hast.1124.
Mrs. Clark's case was an ordinary consult in an extraordinary time. She was refusing dialysis, but the psychiatric unit had concluded that she lacked capacity for such decision-making. The only difference between Mrs. Clark's current hospitalization and the last two was that it was April 2020 and a virus called Covid-19 had overtaken our hospital. As the chief of Montefiore Medical Center's bioethics service, when I received a consult before the virus, I always saw the patient. Whether the patient had been in a vegetative state for a day or for years, it didn't matter. I would lay my hand on a leg or an arm and observe. But Covid-19 enforced physical boundaries between my team and our patients; I would not be able to meet Mrs. Clark. Our hospital responded to the attack on human connection by getting creative. We asked ourselves, which tools are still available to us? Answering this involved, in part, finding new ways for our team of clinical ethicists to support the clinicians caring for Mrs. Clark.
克拉克夫人的病例只是我们在非常时期处理的众多普通会诊之一。她拒绝接受透析，但精神科已经认定她没有能力做出这样的决定。克拉克夫人当前住院治疗与前两次唯一的区别是，现在是 2020 年 4 月，一种名为新冠病毒的病毒已经席卷了我们的医院。作为蒙特菲奥雷医疗中心生物伦理学服务的负责人，在病毒出现之前，每当我接到会诊请求时，我总是会去见病人。无论病人处于植物人状态一天还是一年，都没有关系。我会把手放在腿或胳膊上进行观察。但是新冠病毒迫使我的团队与病人之间保持身体上的距离；我将无法见到克拉克夫人。我们的医院通过创新来应对人际联系受到的攻击。我们自问，我们还有哪些工具可用？要回答这个问题，部分答案是为照顾克拉克夫人的临床医生找到我们临床伦理学家团队支持他们的新方法。
