When rationing becomes inevitable in a pandemic: A discussion on the ethical considerations from a public health perspective.

Objectives: Coronavirus Disease 2019 has presented extreme difficulties to healthcare resource allocation worldwide. Health resources, particularly during a pandemic, are limited even in developed countries. The main challenge for healthcare professionals is to be able to ration resources in an ethical manner. Therefore, this leads to ethical considerations that we aim to discuss in this paper, based on which, recommendations can be made for reference by healthcare management, policymakers, and public health practitioners.
Study Design: This is a discussion paper.
Methods: A brief review of the major principles as they relate to the notion of rationing in a pandemic was conducted. We organized an ethical discussion from public health perspectives based on these major principles.
Results: Prior to deciding the principles to adopt, a transparent and robust guideline for rationing must be established. There are four considerations that need to be made: transparency, consistency, inclusiveness, and accountability. There does not exist a "perfect" principle to adopt during rationing. However, in the authors' opinion, the most obvious principles that would be unsuitable during a healthcare crisis would be the equal worth and prioritarian principles. This leaves the equity principle, utilitarian and urgent need principles.
Conclusion: The recommendation of this discussion paper is to adopt multiple principles according to the situation of each country or even the particular hospital.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(© 2022 The Authors.)