The ethics of isolation and social distancing

The rationale for isolation and social distancing is to minimise mortality and morbidity but also to reduce the burden on an overstretched NHS. Isolation separates those who have a contagious disease from the unaffected, quarantine separates those exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become ill.6 Quarantine, isolation and social distancing impose limits on an individual’s freedom and autonomy and is justified by the principle of utility, one acts to maximise aggregate welfare.5 There is an ethical need to balance the welfare of society and the rights of the individual when implementing these. For quarantine to be ethically justifiable, there must clear evidence of person-to person spread of potentially serious disease. The restrictions imposed on people must be proportionate to the harms.6 The principle of reciprocity is relevant, where individual rights are limited, the government has duties to limit any consequent burdens on individuals and communities.6 Human rights principles provide a framework for evaluating the ethical acceptability of public health measures that limit individual freedom.5 Principles of distributive justice, or equity, require that public health measures do not place unfair burdens on particular segments of the population. Specific attention should be given to groups that are the most vulnerable to discrimination, stigmatisation or isolation, including racial and ethnic minorities, elderly people, prisoners, disabled persons, migrants and the homeless.4 5

Social-distancing measures should as far as possible take account of adverse social, economic, psychological and health effects for individuals.5 Employment protection should be provided for workers who comply with social-distancing measures against the wishes of their employers.5 Travel restrictions and border controls should be in line with WHO recommendations and be flexible to accord with international recommendations5 The isolation of symptomatic individuals should be voluntary if at all possible, mandatory measures should only be instituted as a last resort when voluntary measures are seen to be inadequate for the health of the community.5

If the public lack trust in the authorities, then they are unlikely to act on the suggested measures to prevent spread of the pandemic with a consequent increase in mortality.7 A continuing dialogue is needed between health professionals, government and society to maintain trust and solidarity.

Healthcare workers’ duty of care to patients

Healthcare workers’ obligations to care for patients are embedded in the principle of beneficence.

Access to treatment when resources are limited: utility and equity

Priority setting and rationing of scarce resources are not new problems facing the NHS, although the degree of transparency surrounding the approach used to ration care varies.22 From a utilitarian perspective, the ethical goal is to save as many lives as possible but this utility principle must be aligned with equity; the distribution of resources should be fair. Fairness through impartiality means that where life and health are involved, every individual is of equal value. Every individual, irrespective of age, wealth, gender, status, religion, political opinions or merits has the same dignity, the same moral value and, therefore, the right to equal treatment in case of illness.23 Nobody should receive privileged medical treatment at the expense of other affected individuals on the basis of their ability to pay, their standing, their social position or their age.23

Conversely, with regard to age, some have put forward a ‘Fair innings argument’. This reflects the idea that everyone is entitled to some ‘normal’ span of life years and so the young have stronger claims to lifesaving interventions than older persons because they have had fewer opportunities to experience life.5 The false implication arising from this argument is that saving 1 year of life for a young person is valued more than saving 1 year of life for an older person. Triage decisions on access to treatment must never be solely based on age.16

Where ethical principles conflict, there should be open discussion with members of society to ensure that decision processes involved in rationing resources are transparent. If there is a shortage of resources for the treatment of pandemic COVID-19, every effort must be made to make more resources available.23 However, if the resources required to properly treat all patients are not available, then a wholly ‘fair’ decision and distribution may not be possible and in this case the least unfair solution must be sought.23 That process should be based on the following objectives: containing the infection and saving the maximum number of patients who are in a life-threatening condition. Those who are suffering from COVID-19 and other patients who require intensive care should be assessed according to the same criteria.23 Infection with COVID-19 should not guarantee priority over other illnesses requiring intensive care.16

Unequal rules can only be justified if they lead to more effective containment of the infection or to the saving of a relatively large number of human lives, for example, giving healthcare workers some priority for vaccination (when this becomes available). In this context, the utilitarian argument is that the pandemic is an exceptional situation which permits the pursuit of the greatest common benefit.23 Other groups who might have a claim for priority for vaccines include people known to be central to spreading infection or ‘super-spreaders’ and people at increased risk of death if infected.5 Such policies that favour certain categories of people may be perceived as unfair and undermine public trust in the NHS.

If there are insufficient resources, then those who will suffer the least as a result of exclusion should be excluded.23 At the same time, additional resources should, as much as possible, be mobilised to maximise availability. Rationing must be based on ethical criteria which should be reviewed in relation to the progress of the pandemic.23 Ethical criteria include four key elements23:

• Transparency: the measures are explained and well justified.

• Health benefit: the measures are evidence based.

• Efficiency: the measures should reach the greatest possible number of individuals.

• Adaptability: review and modify previous measures in the light of new findings.

An example for the allocation of scarce resources is the Swiss Influenza Pandemic Plan23:

1. The first phase, everyone who needs treatment will receive it until the number requiring treatment exceeds the capacity of the treatment facilities.

2. The second phase, when it is no longer possible to treat everyone because therapeutic capacity is exhausted, scarce therapeutic resources will be reserved for those whose conditions are most life threatening.

3. The third phase corresponds to the triage used in war or disaster situations. Scarce resources should be reserved for patients with life-threatening conditions. When all those with life-threatening conditions can no longer be treated actively, priority will be given to those who are expected to have the best chance of survival as a result of treatment. Active treatment in this phase will be withheld only from those who are unlikely to benefit from it. It is important to ensure that people with disabilities and the vulnerable have an equal opportunity to benefit from treatment. Triage decision-makers should not be influenced by subjective determinations of long-term survival which may be influenced by biased personal values or quality-of-life opinions.24 Individuals with a poor prognosis who would not benefit from intensive care will be given palliative care.23 The details of the criteria for triage must be transparent and open to revision.25

   Triage however is a complex area and results in tragic choices, stressful for staff and particularly for patients. Some have argued that a first come first served approach may be hard to escape.26 However, such an approach would discriminate against the socially disadvantaged who have less access to care.26 Triage decisions should be discussed and agreed and the criteria adopted discussed with the public in an open honest way. The alternative is that the public may come to distrust the NHS.26

It should be remembered that there is no ethically significant difference between decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatment or to withdraw it.16 Doctors however may feel that there is a psychological difficulty in withdrawing treatment and may find it easier to suggest a time-limited trial of treatment.

The public have unrealistic ideas, derived from TV soaps, that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is usually successful.27 However, if patients have such comorbidities or fraility that they would not be admitted to an intensive care unit, then CPR should not be attempted in the event of their collapse.16 Attempting CPR for patients when postresuscitation intensive care is not available causes harm to the patient, wastes resources and puts the team at risk.16 CPR decisions should be part of advance care planning discussions and explanations with patients and their families.

The conversations around these decisions are often incredibly difficult since individual situations often do not fit easily in distinct criteria. Health workers need psychological support and time to reflect and to discuss their dilemmas with colleagues.