In a church basement in a poor East Baltimore neighborhood in Maryland, a Johns Hopkins doctor enlisted residents to help answer one of the most fraught questions in public health: When a surge of patients — from a disaster, disease outbreak or terrorist attack — overwhelms hospitals, how should you ration care? Whose lives should be saved first?
For the past several years, Lee Daugherty Biddison, a critical care physician at Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, and colleagues have led an unusual public debate around Maryland, from Zion Baptist Church in East Baltimore to a wellness center in wealthy Howard County to a hospital on the rural Eastern Shore. Preparing to make recommendations for US state officials that could serve as a national model, the researchers heard hundreds of citizens discuss whether a doctor could remove one patient from lifesaving equipment, like a ventilator, to make way for another who might have a better chance of recovering, or could take age into consideration in setting priorities.
At that first public forum in 2012 in East Baltimore, Cierra Brown, a former Johns Hopkins Hospital custodian, said she favored a random approach like a lottery.
Illustration: Mountain People
“I don’t think any of us should choose whether a person should live or die,” she said.
Alex Brecht, a youth program developer sitting across from her, said he thought children should be favored over adults.
“Just looking at them, seeing their smiles, they have so much potential,” he said.
“Who’s going to raise them?” asked Tiffany Jackson, another participant.
The effort is among the first times, Biddison said, that a state has gathered informed public opinion on these questions before devising policy on them.
“I don’t want to be in a position of making these decisions without knowing what you think,” she told the residents. “We as providers don’t want to make those decisions in isolation.”
Rationing already occurs in delivering medical care in the US, although some practices are little acknowledged. Committees struggle regularly over policies for allocating scarce organs for transplant.
During widespread drug shortages in recent years, doctors have sometimes chosen among cancer patients for proven chemotherapy regimens and among surgical patients for the most effective anesthetics. And doctors sometimes have to choose among patients who need treatment in intensive care units, which are often filled to capacity.
In emergencies, the choices can have immediate life-or-death consequences. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, doctors made ad hoc decisions about which groups of patients to evacuate from hospitals when floodwaters rose, the power failed and heat climbed. At one medical center, many of the sickest, chosen to go last, died.
During the H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, thousands of young people developed severe respiratory distress. For some of the most critical cases, doctors tried treatment on heart-lung machines. Rationing took place because the costly and resource-intensive therapy, which doctors were not sure would help, was available in only about 120 hospitals.
Similar scenarios have developed in other countries, wealthy and poor. After the 2011 earthquake and subsequent disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan, some patients at nearby hospitals, including babies, were selected for flights to safety, while others languished for days as medical supplies dwindled.
At one hospital, dozens of older patients were apparently abandoned, according to a report in The Lancet, and many died.
And during the 2014 Ebola epidemic in west Africa, when doctors and nurses could spend only so many minutes inside hot biohazard suits, they struggled with impossible choices over which patients to give care.
Biddison, a vice chairwoman at the Johns Hopkins Department of Medicine, said she had first encountered scarce medical resources while doing missionary work overseas.
She realized that even Johns Hopkins Hospital, a 1,145-bed facility anchoring the US$7.7 billion Johns Hopkins Medicine enterprise, would fail to meet demand in a severe pandemic. When asked to help draw up a plan, she said that she felt uncomfortable with health professionals making life-or-death judgements without knowing the values of the broader public.
At least 18 US states from New York to California, and numerous hospitals, including the 152 medical centers operated by the US Department of Veterans Affairs, have already developed protocols, some with the support of federal hospital preparedness funding.
However, relatively few people know about the plans for allocating scarce resources, and fewer still have been consulted.
Some of these guidelines are nuanced and flexible to context. However, others call for doctors to categorically refuse hospital admittance to older adults and those with certain pre-existing medical conditions, such as kidney failure or advanced cancer, in a severe pandemic.
In Maryland, participants in the forums, designed with the help of Carnegie Mellon University’s program for deliberative democracy, tended to favor saving the most lives or years of life by prioritizing people who were expected to survive their current illness or live the longest after being treated.
However, many also said that a lottery or “first-come-first-served” approach would be appropriate for patients who had roughly equal chances of benefiting.
“If you have one ventilator and five people who are good candidates, there’s going to have to be a random sort of chance aspect to it,” said Eric Toner, a senior associate at the UPMC Center for Health Security and one of the project’s leaders.
Unexpected questions emerged in the discussions: Should an undocumented immigrant be eligible to get a ventilator? What about a drug or alcohol abuser, or a prisoner? After being told by a facilitator that discrimination would not be allowed, one participant asked whether using age, one of the principles under discussion, would not also be a form of discrimination?
Taking ventilators from patients who did not appear to be improving was “the single most contentious issue,” Toner said.
Maryland’s attorney general released an opinion in December last year that lifesaving medical technology, including ventilators, could be removed from patients during a catastrophic emergency and reassigned to others who could potentially benefit more from them.
Toner said it would be hard for any system to work without reallocation.
At the forums, many expressed reservations. One woman said that she had been in a coma on a ventilator and that her family had been encouraged to turn it off and let her die.
“Healthcare providers are not God,” another said. “I’ve seen it firsthand where they thought one thing and the outcome was different.”
To avoid rationing, a woman proposed a “Susan G Komen for disaster preparedness,” a reference to the ubiquitous fundraising movement for a breast cancer cure. Some said they would voluntarily refuse a ventilator to save the lives of other people, such as children or family members. A man questioned whether doctors would even have the time in an emergency to engage in formal rationing. Some with lower incomes said that healthcare rationing was already occurring based on the ability to pay.
Translating all these ideas into recommendations for the state — most likely in the middle of next year — will be challenging. The organizers said that despite the complexity, they were now in a better position to provide the guidelines.
“We have a much fuller appreciation of what the community wants,” said Howard Gwon, the director of the office of emergency management for Johns Hopkins Hospital.
Charles Blattberg, a professor of political philosophy at the University of Montreal, Quebec, said he worried that the effort could result in overly precise guidelines.
“The kind of judgement that’s required to arrive at a good decision in these situations needs to be extremely sensitive to the context,” he said. “It’s not about just abandoning one lone doctor to their own devices to make it up on the spot, but we can’t go the other extreme in thinking we have the solution to the puzzle already; just follow these instructions. That works for technical problems; these are moral, political problems.”
Ruth Faden, the founder of Johns Hopkins’ Berman Institute of Bioethics, which participated in the project, said she saw value in the exercise far beyond a pandemic.
“It’s a novel and important attempt to turn extremely complicated core ethical considerations into something people can make sense of and struggle with in ordinary language,” she said.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under