Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Ethical principles and a practical approach to support policy making through the next phases of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

Zoë Fritz, Julian L Huppert, Kathleen Liddell, Richard Holton and Jonathan P Fuld
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.2020-0843
Clin Med March 2021
Zoë Fritz
AThe Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute, Cambridge, UK and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
Roles: consultant in acute medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Zbmf2@cam.ac.uk
Julian L Huppert
BJesus College, Cambridge; visiting professor in the Policy Institute, King's College London
Roles: director of the Intellectual Forum
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathleen Liddell
CMedicine and Life Sciences and reader in intellectual property and medical law, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Roles: director of Centre of Law
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Holton
DUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Roles: professor of philosophy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jonathan P Fuld
ECambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
Roles: consultant in acute and respiratory medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

ABSTRACT

There is an urgent need for an ethical framework to help us address the local and national challenges that we face as clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. We propose four key commitments from which a practical and consistent ethical approach can be derived. These commitments are to articulate the needs, rights and interests of the different stakeholders affected by any policy; to be accountable and transparent, recognising that people are autonomous individuals with values and concerns of their own; to consider the impact of our actions on the sustainability of the NHS, infrastructure, service demands and staff welfare; and to treat everybody equitably, with all deserving of consideration and care. Implementing these commitments will require a number of specific actions. We must put in place frameworks enabling clear advocacy for each competing objective; communicate policy and practice effectively to the public; promote integration of decision-making among social, primary, secondary and tertiary care and reduce or stop unnecessary or inefficient interventions; minimise health inequalities; and build spare capacity into the system.

In this article, we expand on these actions, and note the legal context in which this would be delivered.

KEYWORDS:
  • Ethics
  • policy
  • COVID-19
  • law

Introduction

The 3 months from March to May 2020 saw what we had hoped would be the highest peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Many papers have already been written about this extraordinary period: the logistical, clinical and emotional challenges we have faced; the inequities which have been unmasked; the difficulty of prioritising among patients and among different care settings; the lack of integrated care; the focus on ventilator allocation and construction at the expense of care homes; the presence – and lack – of ethical guidance.1 As cases rise again we need to think about how to create a framework which will provide the structure to address future challenges.

There is also an opportunity to improve ways of working beyond the needs of this pandemic. The last few months have seen rapid changes in clinical practice, with institutions and individuals trying new approaches to the delivery of care that would in normal times have involved multiple bureaucratic steps. Although these are for the most part operational changes, they all have ethical aspects which need to be considered. And while, in some respects, people are keen to return to work as before, we must not lose the positive changes that have come from this time of unrest: the shared goals that have led to better collaborations and to more integrated thinking.

A pandemic shifts emphasis within clinicians’ ethical and professional frameworks. For example, the General Medical Council's Duties of a doctor states: ‘Make the care of your patient your first concern.’2 In a pandemic, population-level concerns are more explicitly articulated, alongside greater awareness of the importance of looking after staff wellbeing.3,4 In truth, we should always be thinking about the patient, other patients and staff, and public health. The pandemic has simply required us to think more carefully about balancing and prioritising the legal and ethical interests of all these groups, and about extending them to future groups.

So what ethical framework should we use, and how should it be applied? Working together in our System-wide Ethical Committee and extrapolating on work done by Fritz and Cox,5 who in turn draw on Rawls and Scanlon, we propose four principles from which a practical and consistent approach can be derived.

First, we must make a commitment to articulating the needs, rights and interests of the different stakeholders affected by any policy. In this pandemic, the needs of those infected with COVID-19 conflicted with the needs of those suffering with non-COVID-19-related illnesses and long-term conditions; we needed to make and enact policies which achieved the best possible health outcomes for both groups. Alongside these groups, we needed to protect the workforce looking after all of these patients and to sustain a health service which would be able to look after future generations of patients. As we move on, different groups will be identified whose perspectives must also be articulated.

Second, we must make a commitment to be accountable and transparent, recognising that people are autonomous individuals with values and concerns of their own. This means that people – at individual and population levels – should be kept as informed as possible; they should have the chance to express their views on matters that affect them; their views about their treatment and care should be appropriately respected; and ultimately decisions taken that affect them should be reasoned and open.

Third, we must make a commitment to consider the impact of our actions on future generations: we must make decisions which are sustainable, ensuring adequate training and support of our staff, and national investment in infrastructure.

Last but by no means least, we must make a commitment to treat everybody equitably, with all deserving of consideration and care. This does not mean giving everyone equal treatment; it means that decisions to treat people differently must be justified on ethically and legally defensible grounds (see Box 1 for more on the legal context).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Box 1.

The legal context

Recommended actions

Implementing these commitments will require a number of specific actions, which we outline below.

Put in place frameworks enabling clear advocacy for each competing objective

These need to be established at local, regional, and national levels. Where decisions are being made, conflicting demands (eg among different patient or staffing groups, or across care settings) should be identified and considered. This is not the same as ensuring there is representation from each group: it means documenting all of the different groups affected, and assigning individuals as ‘leads’ for each group. We do this for patients who lack capacity in appointing an independent mental capacity advocate (IMCA), and we should do this to ensure that those groups with less power, and less strong voices, are heard in discussions about policy. It also helps to prevent inappropriate weight being given to the objective that is most prominent at any given time. This will be important as we make ongoing decisions about distribution of personal protective equipment (PPE), the prioritisation and order of reopening services, and all the other pressing decisions to come (see Box 2 for more on the deliberative citizen process).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Box 2.

The deliberative citizen process

Communicate policy and practice effectively to the public

We should produce lay summaries and updates of policy and practice across local, regional and national health care groups. Well-placed trust from the public needs to be earned; to do this, there should be access to deliberations, and publication of key policy decisions and key information. This may provoke some anxiety in the short term but will reduce the spread of disinformation and strengthen trust, and may improve health outcomes.14 Accessible information is needed about the reasons for shielding (or stopping shielding), the validity of tests, the level of nosocomial infection and the likely waiting times for resumption of normal services. This will respect individuals’ autonomy and allow them to make informed decisions about their own behaviour and how to look after each other and to know what to expect when coming to hospital. In addition to being transparent about processes, we need to be transparent about outcomes (and make sure we choose measurable outcomes with direct relevance to patient care and experience). These include those measures already established in healthcare that have been upended by the cessation of almost all routine care (such time-to-treatment and quality of life measures in chronic disease). In addition, COVID-19 brings specific risks to patients and healthcare environments; new quality indices such as mortality from ICU admission and hospital acquired infections may be needed. These agreed measures need to adopted and implemented at scale so that organisations struggling to support their communities can be helped to provide better outcomes.

Promote integration of decision-making among social, primary, secondary and tertiary care and reduce or stop unnecessary or inefficient interventions

This is essential to ensure inequalities are addressed and inefficiencies diminished. We need to learn from the reactive overemphasis placed on the availability of ventilators at the beginning of the pandemic, while avoidable deaths happened due to inadequate planning in care homes, with failures including insufficient PPE and inappropriate discharges to make hospital beds available. It is possible that this occurred because the voices in the acute trusts were louder, or more visible; we need to ensure all aspects of care provision are balanced. As we restart services, we should also be honest with ourselves – and the public – about which ones are needed. Many services that have historically been provided by the NHS are not shown by evidence to be of sufficient benefit,15 ‘grommets’ being a classical example.16 As an integrated community we can do this better. We should not simply aim to return to providing treatments or performing investigations just because we did before, but should use this ‘reset’ opportunity to ensure that we do the activities that are most worth doing. There can be no better time to seize this opportunity; swathes of services have stopped or adapted, few people use NHS time unnecessarily and all care environments are pressured. NHS leaders can support systems to capitalise on this extraordinary situation to better match our health provision to the needs of the populations they serve.

Minimise health inequalities

As services are restarted it is imperative that the opportunity is taken to reduce existing health inequalities, rather than allowing them to worsen. Drawing on Rawls’ difference principle,17,18 services should be preferentially restarted in more disadvantaged areas, or where the beneficiaries are less advantaged. Consideration should also be given to equalities in staff deployment, to ensure the extra load does not land on the worst paid.

Build spare capacity into the system

To maintain a sustainable health service – and one which can respond flexibly to change in demands – we need to build ‘spare capacity’ into the system. The NHS, in response to financial pressures, has been operating on a ‘lean’ model with no surplus material, and a supply chain – of staff, beds and equipment – which is only just adequate to deal with usual demand. While this model may work for a car manufacturer, it leads to inefficiencies in a health service even without a pandemic. We are all familiar with the routine of ‘winter pressures’, and the often desperate efforts to identify empty (or to clear) hospital beds. If we struggle to cope in normal times, what hope is there of responding well to a pandemic? It is possible that this lack of spare resources may have been fatal to some; there are likely to be many reasons why Germany's mortality per million population is so much lower than ours, but one set of factors is that they have many more hospital beds, intensive care beds and doctors per 100 population than we do.19 They did not therefore have to reorganise hospitals and stop non-COVID-19 procedures to the same extent that we did, nor was their nosocomial infection rate as high. Making policies which ensure we have some ‘crisis resilience’ would prepare us not only for medical crises, but may also improve the sustainability of the workforce in other ways – by improving training, protecting mental health, creating the ability to work across sectors, and in fostering greater understanding of competing needs. Other emergency sectors work like this: most fire engines are not used for most of the time, and certainly (thankfully) our military are not fighting most of the time.

Conclusion

We believe that the recommendations given above are necessary to guide our approach to the next stage in the pandemic. They set some practical ground norms through which we can work out the many, more specific issues that will arise – for example, how to prioritise recipients for a vaccine, how to ensure protection of staff with PPE while reducing plastic consumption,20 and how to manage visiting in hospitals and care homes. Ensuring advocacy (including for those with less powerful voices) for all of those affected, and, as a group, considering each of the principles listed5 will help to ensure decisions are equitable, transparent, and sustainable.

We welcome public debate on what additional conditions might be needed, and how we can reach consensus on non-political principles to ensure that healthcare and disease prevention are safely delivered to all those that need them throughout the next stages of the pandemic. Once agreed, these principles will help us respond logically and ethically to the next challenges we face.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2021. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Huxtable R
    . Bin it or pin it? Which professional ethical guidance on managing COVID-19 should I follow? BMC Med Ethics 2020;21:60.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. General Medical Council
    . Duties of a doctor. www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/good-medical-practice/duties-of-a-doctor [Accessed 20 September 2020].
  3. ↵
    1. Fritz Z
    , Huxtable R, Ives J, et al. Ethical road map through the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;369:m2033.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. McDougall RJ
    , Gillam L, Ko D, et al. Balancing health worker well-being and duty to care: an ethical approach to staff safety in COVID-19 and beyond. J Med Ethics 2020, in press (doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106557).
  5. ↵
    1. Fritz Z
    , Cox CL. Integrating philosophy, policy and practice to create a just and fair health service J Med Ethics 2020;46:797–802.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Aldridge RW
    , Lewer D, Katikireddi SV, et al. Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups in England are at increased risk of death from COVID-19: indirect standardisation of NHS mortality data. Wellcome Open Res 2020;5:88.
    OpenUrl
    1. Li J
    , Huang DQ, Zou B, et al. Epidemiology of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes. J Med Virol 2020, in press (doi: 10.1002/jmv.26424).
    1. Liddell K
    , Skopek JM, Palmer S, et al. Who gets the ventilator? Important legal rights in a pandemic. J Med Ethics 2020;46:421–6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence
    . COVID-19 rapid guideline: critical care in adults. NICE guideline [NG159]. NICE, 2020. Available from www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng159 [Accessed 30 September 2020].
    1. Huppert J
    , Rogers de Waal J. Save keyworkers over royal family or cabinet, say public. YouGov, 2020. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/articles-reports/2020/06/05/save-key-workers-over-royal-family-or-cabinet-say- [Accessed 30 September 2020].
    1. Awad E
    , Dsouza S, Kim R, et al. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 2018;563:59–64.
    OpenUrl
    1. Esobar O
    , Elstub S. Forms of mini-publics: An introduction to deliberative innovations in democratic practice. New Democracy, 2017. Available from www.newdemocracy.com.au/2017/05/08/forms-of-mini-publics/.
    1. Fishkin J
    . When the people speak: deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
  6. ↵
    1. Berkman ND
    , Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, et al. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:97–107.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Shrank WH
    , Rogstad TL, Parekh N. Waste in the US health care system: estimated costs and potential for savings. JAMA 2019;322:1501–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. NHS England
    . Interim clinical commissioning policy: grommets (children and adults). NHSE, 2013. www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2013/11/N-SC015.pdf [Accessed 30 November 2020].
  9. ↵
    1. Rawls J
    . A Theory of Justice. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
  10. ↵
    1. Lamont J
    , Favor C. Distributive justice. In: Zalta EN (ed), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2017 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/justice-distributive/ [Accessed 30 November 2020].
  11. ↵
    1. Chazin G
    . Oversupply of hospital beds helps Germany to fight virus. Financial Times, 13 April 2020.
  12. ↵
    1. Wardrope A
    . Health justice in the Anthropocene: medical ethics and the Land Ethic. J Med Ethics 2020;46:791–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Ethical principles and a practical approach to support policy making through the next phases of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond
Zoë Fritz, Julian L Huppert, Kathleen Liddell, Richard Holton, Jonathan P Fuld
Clinical Medicine Mar 2021, 21 (2) e122-e125; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.2020-0843

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Ethical principles and a practical approach to support policy making through the next phases of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond
Zoë Fritz, Julian L Huppert, Kathleen Liddell, Richard Holton, Jonathan P Fuld
Clinical Medicine Mar 2021, 21 (2) e122-e125; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.2020-0843
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Introduction
    • Recommended actions
    • Conclusion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Real-world use of the Breathing Pattern Assessment Tool in assessment of breathlessness post-COVID-19
  • Understanding the diagnosis and management of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A) in the UK: results of a national Delphi process
  • The clinical course of pneumomediastinum in patients with SARS-CoV-2 before invasive mechanical ventilation
Show more COVID-19 rapid report

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians