Skip to main content

The ethics of PPE

If health care resources and staff are stretched to the limit, difficult life or death choices must be made.  Who to treat? That will be the question.

At ordinary times decisions might be made based on whether treatment will do more harm than good.  It might even be the patient who decides.  End of life decisions are more often like that.  Will further treatment help?



But these are not regular times.

The British Medical Association guidance on pandemics says

"In dangerous pandemics the ethical balance of all doctors and health care workers must shift towards the utilitarian objective of equitable concern for all – while maintaining respect for all as ‘ends in themselves’."

If resources are spent on saving the life of one person at the expense of many others, how then is that balance to be made?

One thing is sure.  Our actions are also part of this ethical mix.  Our efforts will determine whether or not the anticipated surge in those requiring treatment overwhelms the limited resources of the NHS.

A great deal is said about 'flattening the curve'.  But this is really what this is about.  It is about enabling our doctors and nurses to cope.  The more we can contain the numbers of cases at any one time, the easier the ethical decisions can be made or avoided.   Who lives and who dies depends on us as much as it does the medical staff.

But the government must also take responsibility too.  The lack of PPE is also making ethical decisions more difficult.   Medical staff should not be in their position of balancing the risk to their own lives against those of their patients.

Personal Protective Equipment is a resource that saves lives.   It does so in more ways than protecting health care workers and patients from infection.   It eases the availability of staff and that, in turn, helps save lives.

The real precious resource


The Health Secretary Matt Hancock said PPE was a 'precious resource.'

The Royal College of Nursing's General Secretary, Dame Donna Kinnair, responded on BBC Radio 4 that no PPE was "more precious a resource than a healthcare worker’s life, a nurse’s life, a doctor’s life".

The government says it has 'a plan.'

The Home Secretary conceded in her press conference last week that there had been “distribution issues” as a result of global demand for PPE and that there was now a “clear plan” for delivering it. She failed, however, to indicate what the 'clear plan' was. 

I have no doubt there is a plan, although it is difficult to see precisely what it is.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.  We don't a…