Abstract

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.

Highlights

  • As a number of commentators have noted, SARS exposed the vulnerabilities of our health care systems and governance structures

  • The health care workers (HCWs) and hospital systems that bore the brunt of the SARS outbreak continue to struggle with the aftermath of the crisis

  • It is of pressing importance that organizations representing HCWs – professionals and non-professionals alike – give clear indication of what standard of care is expected of their members in the event of a pandemic

Read more

Summary

Discussion

Is there a problem? Given that the response by HCPs to the SARS crisis was generally regarded as exemplary, one might ask whether an ethical problem truly exists. With respect to the duty to care, it is not acceptable for codes of ethics to be vague, ambiguous, or otherwise avoid explicit statements of position This is true in light of calls for additional protections for HCPs during infectious disease outbreaks, including a position statement to that effect issued by the Ontario Medical Association [25]. Such calls for danger pay and/or enhanced disability insurance could be justified if the professions expressed a strong commitment to the ethical duty to provide care during public health emergencies. Health care professionals and the general public should participate in discussions to determine whether and when it is legitimate for HCPs to eschew the duty to care in the face of personal risk

Background
Summary
Stohr K
13. Reid L
Findings
25. Ontario Medical Association
27. University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics: Stand on guard for thee
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call