We have to know when to let go, says bioethicist
by Michael Cook | 26 Apr 2020 |
Many observers of the unfolding coronavirus crisis have lamented the apparent neglect of the elderly and the disproportionate number of deaths. But, writing in The Hastings Center bioethics forum, 75-year-old bioethicist Larry R. Churchill is more philosophical.
He contends that in a pandemic the elderly have “an obligation for parsimonious use of newly scarce and expensive health care resources”.
My position is grounded in a lifespan approach to ethics. The basic idea is that ethics must be rethought at various stages in life and that what might have counted as virtuous or responsible during one phase might be irrelevant or even counterproductive at a later stage.
For example, autonomy and productivity, which were cardinal virtues in my youth and middle age, are increasingly unimportant. Things I now value highly are convivial friendships, kindness, and humor, and the essential moral tasks are now integrity and bearing a series of inevitable losses with some degree of dignity. Allowing the moral values I earlier prized to remain prominent into my mid-70s would be a sign of arrested moral development.
With that in mind, he says that his obligations are as follows:
- To the extent possible, to keep myself well, reducing the burden on the system as a whole;
- To think of myself as already infected, and be especially vigilant about hand-washing, social distancing, and eliminating nonessential occasions for exposure;
- To refrain from using health care services whenever possible, making sure I am not simply responding anxiously to something I can manage alone or something that can be postponed;
- To refrain from being tested, or to allow others to be tested first, even if I have symptoms; others have much more at stake in knowing their status than I do;
- If hospitals become overwhelmed, to refrain from being hospitalized, even when that is recommended, except when I become a major hazard to others in my household; here I would hope for a more robust availability of palliative measures in home care;
- If I am hospitalized and ventilators remain scarce, to forego ventilation in favor of younger patients;
- When a vaccine becomes available, to move near the end of the queue.
Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge
I'm not sure who was the first to say, "“Never let a good crisis go to waste". But lots of people are taking this wisdom to heart in the Covid-19 pandemic. It's a time when unconventional ideas may get a warmer welcome than usual because of the fear and the sense of urgency in the air. Perhaps that's why organ donation euthanasia sounds a bit more plausible if Covid-19 victims are doing the donating. See the report below.
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Apr 26, 2020
Two bioethicists argue that victims can offer their bodies for experimentation and organ donationby Michael Cook | Apr 26, 2020
A lifespan approach to bioethicsby Michael Cook | Apr 26, 2020
He has been giving the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine to coronavirus-positive elderly patientsby Michael Cook | Apr 26, 2020
It might save lives but it tests the bounds of privacyby Michael Cook | Apr 26, 2020
A British judge has ruled that a woman should be fitted with an IUDby Xavier Symons | Apr 25, 2020
Patients need not be competent to be euthanised.by Michael Cook | Apr 25, 2020
Neglect of nursing homes is a “humanitarian crisis”. BioEdge
Level 1, 488 Botany Road, Alexandria NSW 2015 Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario