Cécile M. Bensimon

On pandemics and the duty to care: whose duty? who cares?

BackgroundAs a number of commentators have noted, SARS exposed the vulnerabilities of our health care systems and governance structures. Health care professionals (HCPs) and hospital systems that bore the brunt of the SARS outbreak continue to struggle with the aftermath of the crisis. Indeed, HCPs – both in clinical care and in public health – were severely tested by SARS. Unprecedented demands were placed on their skills and expertise, and their personal commitment to their profession was severely tried. Many were exposed to serious risk of morbidity and mortality, as evidenced by the World Health Organization figures showing that approximately 30% of reported cases were among HCPs, some of whom died from the infection. Despite this challenge, professional codes of ethics are silent on the issue of duty to care during communicable disease outbreaks, thus providing no guidance on what is expected of HCPs or how they ought to approach their duty to care in the face of risk.DiscussionIn the aftermath of SARS and with the spectre of a pandemic avian influenza, it is imperative that we (re)consider the obligations of HCPs for patients with severe infectious diseases, particularly diseases that pose risks to those providing care. It is of pressing importance that organizations representing HCPs give clear indication of what standard of care is expected of their members in the event of a pandemic. In this paper, we address the issue of special obligations of HCPs during an infectious disease outbreak. We argue that there is a pressing need to clarify the rights and responsibilities of HCPs in the current context of pandemic flu preparedness, and that these rights and responsibilities ought to be codified in professional codes of ethics. Finally, we present a brief historical accounting of the treatment of the duty to care in professional health care codes of ethics.SummaryAn honest and critical examination of the role of HCPs during communicable disease outbreaks is needed in order to provide guidelines regarding professional rights and responsibilities, as well as ethical duties and obligations. With this paper, we hope to open the social dialogue and advance the public debate on this increasingly urgent issue.

A qualitative study of the duty to care in communicable disease outbreaks

Abstract Health care providers’ (HCPs’) duty to care during communicable disease outbreaks has resurfaced as an important and contentious topic. This renewed interest follows the re-emergence of communicable diseases, largely thought to have disappeared and therefore irrelevant to modern day practitioners. The 2003 SARS outbreak particularly presented propitious circumstances for reconsidering this issue. This study seeks to characterize the views of individuals on the nature and limits of this duty. The authors employed qualitative methods to gather lay and expert perspectives. Individual interviews were conducted with 67 participants consisting of HCPs, spiritual leaders, regulators, and members of the public from the greater Toronto area. Participants’ views were analyzed and organized according to three main themes, constituting a framework that combines micro-, meso-, and macro-level structures and processes: the scope of obligations of HCPs, the roles of health care institutions, and the broader social context, respectively. Our data suggest that the duty to care must be placed in a wider context to include considerations that transcend individual provider obligations. It thus follows, based on our data, that the duty to care cannot be left to personal choice or an appeal to morality based on an ethic derived entirely from individual obligations. The micro-meso-macro analytical framework that we have developed can guide the articulation of accepted norms of duty to care during epidemics and the development of policy for public health crises. It can also enhance the focus of our current expectations of HCPs’ duty during epidemics. This can be achieved by informing regulatory bodies, collaborating with policy makers and engaging the public.

Evidence and Effectiveness in Decisionmaking for Quarantine

When public health decisionmakers turned to quarantine during the recent severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic, difficult questions were raised about the legitimacy and acceptability of restrictive measures to attain public health goals. SARS also brought to light how scientific uncertainty can permeate public health decisionmaking, leading us to think about the relationship between the adequacy of evidence of the effectiveness of an intervention and its role in the justification of public health action. In this article, we critically examine the role of evidence and effectiveness in decision-making for quarantine. It is our contention that the effectiveness of a public health intervention should not be defined exclusively in (absolute and objective) scientific terms but rather conceptualized relationally and normatively in public health decisionmaking.

Canadian national surveys on pandemic influenza preparations: pre-pandemic and peri-pandemic findings

BackgroundPrior to the 2009 H1N1 Influenza pandemic, public health authorities in Canada and elsewhere prepared for the future outbreak, partly guided by an ethical framework developed within the Canadian Program of Research on Ethics in a Pandemic (CanPREP). We developed a telephone-based survey based on that framework, which was delivered across Canada in late 2008. In June, 2009, the WHO declared pandemic Phase 6 status and from the subsequent October (2009) until May 2010, the CanPREP team fielded a second (revised) survey, collecting another 1,000 opinions from Canadians during a period of pre-pandemic anticipation and peri-pandemic experience.MethodsSurveys were administered by telephone with random sampling achieved via random digit dialing. Eligible participants were adults, 18 years or older, with per province stratification approximating provincial percentages of national population. Descriptive results were tabulated and logistic regression analyses used to assess whether demographic factors were significantly associated with outcomes, and to identify divergences (between the pre-pandemic and intra-pandemic surveys).ResultsN = 1,029 interviews were completed from 1,986 households, yielding a gross response rate of 52% (AAPOR Standard Definition 3). Over 90% of subjects indicated the most important goal of pandemic influenza preparations was saving lives, with 41% indicating that saving lives solely in Canada was the highest priority and 50% indicating saving lives globally was the highest priority. About 90% of respondents supported the obligation of health care workers to report to work and face influenza pandemic risks excepting those with serious health conditions which that increased risks. Strong majorities favoured stocking adequate protective antiviral dosages for all Canadians (92%) and, if effective, influenza vaccinations (95%). Over 70% agreed Canada should provide international assistance to poorer countries for pandemic preparation, even if resources for Canadians were reduced.ConclusionsResults suggest Canadians trust public health officials to make difficult decisions, providing emphasis is maintained on reciprocity and respect for individual rights. Canadians also support international obligations to help poorer countries and associated efforts to save lives outside the country, even if intra-national efforts are reduced.

“With Human Health It’s a Global Thing”: Canadian Perspectives on Ethics in the Global Governance of an Influenza Pandemic

We live in an era where our health is linked to that of others across the globe, and nothing brings this home better than the specter of a pandemic. This paper explores the findings of town hall meetings associated with the Canadian Program of Research on Ethics in a Pandemic (CanPREP), in which focus groups met to discuss issues related to the global governance of an influenza pandemic. Two competing discourses were found to be at work: the first was based upon an economic rationality and the second upon a humanitarian rationality. The implications for public support and the long-term sustainability of new global norms, networks, and regulations in global public health are discussed.