Search

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic generated overflow of healthcare systems in several countries. As the ethical debates focused on prioritisation for access to care with scarce medical resources, numerous recommendations were created. Late 2021, the emergence of the Omicron variant whose transmissibility was identified but whose vaccine sensitivity was still unknown, reactivated debates. Fears of the need to prioritise patients arose, particularly in France. Especially, a debate began about the role of vaccination status in the prioritisation strategy. Material and methods: The Ethics Committee (EC) of the University Hospital of Bordeaux (UHB), France, identified prioritisation criteria in the literature (some recommended, such as being a healthcare worker (HCW) or having consented to research, while others were discouraged, such as age with a threshold effect or vaccination status). A survey was sent within the institution in January 2022 to explore frontline physicians' adherence to these prioritisation criteria. The decision making conditions were also surveyed. Results: In 15 days, 78/165 (47.3%) frontline physicians responded, and more widely 1286/12946 (9.9%) professionals. A majority of frontline physicians were opposed to prioritising HCWs (54/75, 72%) and even more opposed to participating in research (69/76, 89.6%). Conversely, the results were very balanced for non-recommended criteria (respectively 39/77, 50.7% and 34/69 49.3% in favour for age with a threshold effect and for vaccination status). Decisions were considered to be multi-professional and multi-disciplinary for 65/76, 85.5% and 53/77, 68.8% of frontline physicians. Responders expressed opposition to extending decision-making to representatives of patients, civil society or HCWs not involved in care. Discussion: Prioritisation recommendations in case of scarce medical resources were not necessarily approved by the frontline physicians, or by the other HCWs. This questions the way ethical recommendations should be communicated and discussed at a local scale, but it also questions these recommendations themselves. The article also reports the experience of seeking HCWs opinions on a sensitive ethical debate in a period of crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic generated overflow of healthcare systems in several countries. As the ethical debates focused on prioritisation for access to care with scarce medical resources, numerous recommendations were created. Late 2021, the emergence of the Omicron variant whose transmissibility was identified but whose vaccine sensitivity was still unknown, reactivated debates. Fears of the need to prioritise patients arose, particularly in France. Especially, a debate began about the role of vaccination status in the prioritisation strategy. Material and methods The Ethics Committee (EC) of the University Hospital of Bordeaux (UHB), France, identified prioritisation criteria in the literature (some recommended, such as being a healthcare worker (HCW) or having consented to research, while others were discouraged, such as age with a threshold effect or vaccination status). A survey was sent within the institution in January 2022 to explore frontline physicians' adherence to these prioritisation criteria. The decision making conditions were also surveyed. Results In 15 days, 78/165 (47.3%) frontline physicians responded, and more widely 1286/12946 (9.9%) professionals. A majority of frontline physicians were opposed to prioritising HCWs (54/75, 72%) and even more opposed to participating in research (69/76, 89.6%). Conversely, the results were very balanced for non-recommended criteria (respectively 39/77, 50.7% and 34/69 49.3% in favour for age with a threshold effect and for vaccination status). Decisions were considered to be multi-professional and multi-disciplinary for 65/76, 85.5% and 53/77, 68.8% of frontline physicians. Responders expressed opposition to extending decision-making to representatives of patients, civil society or HCWs not involved in care. Discussion Prioritisation recommendations in case of scarce medical resources were not necessarily approved by the frontline physicians, or by the other HCWs. This questions the way ethical recommendations should be communicated and discussed at a local scale, but it also questions these recommendations themselves. The article also reports the experience of seeking HCWs opinions on a sensitive ethical debate in a period of crisis.

Abstract Background The world is threatened by future pandemics. Vaccines can play a key role in preventing harm, but there will inevitably be shortages because there is no possibility of advance stockpiling. We therefore need some method of prioritising access. Main text This paper reports a critical interpretative review of the published literature that discusses ethical arguments used to justify how we could prioritise vaccine during an influenza pandemic. We found that the focus of the literature was often on proposing different groups as priorities (e.g. those with pre-existing health conditions, the young, the old, health care workers etc.). Different reasons were often suggested as a means of justifying such priority groupings (e.g. appeal to best overall outcomes, fairness, belonging to a vulnerable or ‘at risk’ group etc.). We suggest that much of the literature, wrongly, assumes that we are able to plan priority groups prior to the time of a particular pandemic and development of a particular vaccine. We also point out the surprising absence of various issues from the literature (e.g. how vaccines fit within overall pandemic planning, a lack of specificity about place, issues of global justice etc.). Conclusions The literature proposes a wide range of ways to prioritise vaccines, focusing on different groups and ‘principles’. Any plan to use pandemic vaccine must provide justifications for its prioritisation. The focus of this review was influenza pandemic vaccines, but lessons can be learnt for future allocations of coronavirus vaccine, if one becomes available.

Background: The world is threatened by future pandemics. Vaccines can play a key role in preventing harm, but there will inevitably be shortages because there is no possibility of advance stockpiling. We therefore need some method of prioritising access.Main Text: This paper reports a critical interpretative review of the published literature that discusses ethical arguments used to justify how we could prioritise vaccine during an influenza pandemic. We found that the focus of the literature was often on proposing different groups as priorities (e.g. those with pre-existing health conditions, the young, the old, health care workers etc.). Different reasons were often suggested as a means of justifying such priority groupings (e.g. appeal to best overall outcomes, fairness, belonging to a vulnerable or 'at risk' group etc.). We suggest that much of the literature, wrongly, assumes that we are able to plan priority groups prior to the time of a particular pandemic and development of a particular vaccine. We also point out the surprising absence of various issues from the literature (e.g. how vaccines fit within overall pandemic planning, a lack of specificity about place, issues of global justice etc.).Conclusions: The literature proposes a wide range of ways to prioritise vaccines, focusing on different groups and 'principles'. Any plan to use pandemic vaccine must provide justifications for its prioritisation. The focus of this review was influenza pandemic vaccines, but lessons can be learnt for future allocations of coronavirus vaccine, if one becomes available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]