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 ba...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...