1597 Navigating the Morality of Postponing Urgent Cancer Surgery in The Covid-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Abstract Introduction The Covid-19 pandemic presents challenges of unparalleled magnitude to healthcare resource allocation. Many cancer operations have been postponed due to reduced staff, bed and ICU availability, potentially allowing incurable disease progression. The five-year survival rate for stage 1 bowel cancer is 91%; stage 2, 84%1, yet some studies suggest the mortality rate of ventilated Covid-19 patients is 50-88%2,3,4,5. Many ethical documents attempt to guide just resource allocation for ICU, however, Covid-19 presents a greater conundrum. If resource allocation occurs on the basis of acute medical need it is preferential to Covid-19 care, and at what cost is this to those with potentially curable cancer? How can we navigate pandemic pressures to be as just as we can? Method Literature review and application of ethical theories including utilitarianism, deontology and a Rawlsian approach. Results Utilitarianism argues that allocating scarce resources to those likely to gain minimal benefit, whilst removing benefit from those with a higher likelihood of survival would not be for the greater good. Doctors, however, tend to practise in a more deontological way; that is in the best interests of the patient in front of them. Rawl’s thought experiment allows us to wear a ‘veil of ignorance’ to consider the fairest decision for any undefined individual. Conclusions Covid-19 has forced unprecedented moral dilemmas; these do not just extend to patients requiring ventilators, but those in need of curative surgery. An understanding of ethical principles and a multidisciplinary approach to decision-making should encompass the consideration of outcomes of oncological surgical intervention.