key: cord-0957967-hv02aa9z
authors: Fins, Joseph J.; Miller, Franklin G.
title: Proportionality, Pandemics and Medical Ethics
date: 2020-07-10
journal: Am J Med
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.06.008
sha: ff17731f53e2ba139bef66b1c2db055b8c506517
doc_id: 957967
cord_uid: hv02aa9z

nan

Much has been written about allocating scarce resources during the Covid-19 pandemic. 1 Less attention has been devoted to whether there is a limit to practitioners' obligations with respect to the care of individual patients. Instead of adequate scrutiny of this question, the tendency has been to hail practitioners who have placed themselves at selfless risk as heroes and laud them with nightly applause. 2 While the conduct of health care practitioners has been admirable, approaching medical ethics from the perspective of heroism is neither sustainable nor robust enough to meet the complexity of emergency conditions during a pandemic. And it is unfair because an expectation of heroism presumes that clinicians will assume a disproportionate share of burden that should be distributed more widely. 3 When medical ethicists assess clinical practice in terms of the proportion of burdens and benefits, they invoke the doctrine of proportionality. 4 A choice is proportionate when the benefits outweigh the burdens. Alternately framed, the relationship between ends and means should be proportionate: that is, adequate or appropriate. 5 Such formulations inform decisions about all clinical decisions: for example, what is the net risk-benefit ratio for a patient being assessed for surgery? Will more benefit than harm accrue from the procedure? In routine clinical practice when we think about proportionality we remain focused on how burdens and benefits play out for an individual patient. We determine what is in the patient's best interest while respecting the patient's autonomy and the interests of families if the patient has lost decision-making capacity.

In the context of the current pandemic, the standard formulation of proportionality is limited. When narrowly cast as an assessment for individual patients, proportionality fails to account for the burdens imposed on others. Consider the quandary of a cardiac arrest in a Covid-19 positive patient with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome who is on maximal ventilatory support, two pressors with refractory metabolic acidosis. The family has been approached for a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order but wants everything done;

they insist on chest compressions should the patient arrest. There is no provision for unilateral DNR orders in their jurisdiction. The team is frustrated and believes that chest compressions would be pointless and expose them to needless risk of contagion. They maintain that the patient is already maximally resuscitated. In their view, restoring and maintaining a viable cardiac rhythm would be impossible. Yet the family persists in demanding resuscitation, leading to what is euphemistically labeled a "futility dispute."

Invoking a more expansive conception of proportionality can factor in the consequences of an attempted resuscitation for practitioners on the scene as well as the availability of resources for other patients whose care might be compromised by this action. Viewed as a balance of burdens and benefits in light of all the interests at stake, the extremely low likelihood of patient benefit from attempted resuscitation 6 can be assessed against the risk of aerosolized contagion to staff that occurs during resuscitation. Hermeren, in an essay explicating proportionality, suggests that proportionate actions seek to realize an important goal utilizing relevant means that will help achieve the desired goal. The most favorable approach associated with the least risky alternative should be employed so that the means are "not excessive in relation to the intended goal." 5 While saving a life is an important goal, additional resuscitative efforts in the case vignette become disproportionate because they will not achieve that end. In the aggregate, resuscitation becomes disproportionate because of three inter-related factors: low benefit to the patient; risk to staff; and consumption of scarce resources which might benefit others. Given this analysis, resuscitation can be deemed excessive in relation to the desired goal.

In contrast to the disproportionality of resuscitation, standard palliative care is an example of proportionate (and obligatory) care given the high morbidity and mortality of Covid-19 8 and the pain and suffering burden it has engendered for patients and their families. 9 While the challenges of social isolation of family members and the depersonalization of PPE make communication and demonstrations of empathy more challenging, efforts to overcome these barriers can bring benefits to both patients and families.

It is important that there is clarity about goals of care, including the utility of palliative care amidst the pandemic. During a crisis environment this will be a challenge when the understandable priority is to save lives. Understanding palliation through the prism of proportionality can help provide this needed perspective and direct critical resources to pain and symptom management, for example challenges such as ICU delirium 10 One of the limitations of traditional medical ethics, especially evident within the emergency conditions of the pandemic, is that its focus is almost exclusively on the doctor-patient dyad. Embracing a broader conception of proportionality can help practitioners sustain their professionalism when they feel vulnerable and heroism can no longer pull them through their shift. Proportionality can provide a means to redistribute burdens of care more equitably, so one does not need be a hero to practice ethically.

Proportionality in an emergency context that goes beyond a focus on the individual patient can also inform decisions about rationing intensive care and the allocation of institutional resources devoted to palliative care.

Proportionality can help us grapple with broader systemic concerns and appreciate the moral significance of the hospital as a social institution. This involves the well-being of health care personnel at risk of infection, the prudent use of scarce resources for all Covid positive patients, the utility of curative and palliative care, and the competing claims of other non-Covid-19 patients. 12 Proportionality is not just a matter of selecting means to serve appropriately each of these ends taken separately but making appropriate choices across these domains when one or more of these ends are in tension or conflict.

Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19

The nightly ovation for hospital workers may be New York's greatest performance

Distinguishing professionalism and heroism when disaster strikes: Reflections on 9/11, ebola and other emergencies

The Birth of Bioethics

The principle of proportionality revisited: interpretations and applications

In-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Wuhan

Public health ethics: Mapping the terrain

Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area

Characteristics and palliative care needs of COVID-19 patients receiving comfort directed care

for the BRAIN-ICU Study Investigators. Long-term cognitive impairment after critical illness

Underdetection and undertreatment of dyspnea in critically-ill patients

The untold story -The pandemic's effects on patients without Covid