DNR Ebola: Is there a professional obligation to provide treatment?

By Avigile Baehr

Overhead pages are a staple of a busy ER. They give doctors and nurses a couple extra minutes to prepare for the quick action needed to save patients’ lives after strokes, heart attacks, or trauma. Now, imagine a case today:

Attention, ER staff. A 32 year old female at high risk for Ebola is coming in via ambulance with fever, vomiting, and unstable vital signs. If you are willing to accept the personal risk inherent in providing medical care to this patient, please report to room 3. Otherwise, please disregard this announcement.

A conditional appeal, not an imperative. A qualification that seems to run counter to the oaths that medical professionals take. And yet, a stipulation that hospitals and healthcare providers have considered as they decide how and whether to engage with this deadly infection. Ebola poses a very real threat to providers: two nurses contracted the virus while caring for a patient in Dallas, and California nurses have gone on strike in response to lack of preparedness for safely dealing with the infection. Given the disease’s documented transmission to healthcare providers, its high fatality rate, and the lack of an FDA-approved treatment or vaccine, what are our professional obligations in caring for these patients?

The classic principles of medical ethics are autonomy, beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence. For the purposes of the ‘obligation to treat’ dilemma, I will assume that Ebola patients want to receive treatment, and I will not consider the ethics of experimental treatments as they might relate to the ‘do no harm’ principle. The principles of beneficence and justice, however, are particularly salient to this question. Healthcare providers are not merely obligated to do no harm, but we must also do good by our patients. Despite the uncertainty regarding some experimental treatments for Ebola, timely supportive care is unquestionably beneficial for these patients. Intravenous fluids help prevent shock and organ failure. Breathing tubes can keep patients alive until the virus runs its course. In certain cases, CPR can restart a heart and give someone a chance to survive. Fair and equitable treatment of Ebola patients requires that they be treated by the same clinical standards that apply to any other critically ill patient. By these core principles, the ethical imperative to provide medical treatment to Ebola patients is clear.

What argument can be made, then, for refusing to provide comprehensive medical treatment to a patient with Ebola?

Perhaps providers are only obligated by these principles once they accept someone as a patient. Can a doctor or nurse then ethically refuse to engage in a provider-patient relationship with someone suffering from Ebola, thus freeing him or her of any obligation to treat?

In routine medical care, maybe or maybe not. Most states have specific clauses that allow providers to refuse to provide certain treatment, such as abortion care, on the basis of moral objections. But, both the law and medical professional societies uniquely distinguish emergency situations as obligating medical treatment without qualification. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires that all hospitals who offer emergency care services and who receive any Medicare funding (read: the vast majority of US hospitals) evaluate and stabilize any patient who seeks medical care. This law was designed to prevent hospitals from refusing to treat uninsured or underinsured patients, but it also serves to promote fairness and ameliorate other treatment disparities. Similarly, the American Medical Association Principles of Medical Ethics dictates that physicians should be free to choose the terms in which they agree to provide medical care, except in emergencies. By virtue of their agreement to serve as medical professionals, providers implicitly engage in a patient-provider relationship with anyone who seeks urgent care at their facility.

But, perhaps there should be an exception for personal risk. A similar dilemma with concern for provider safety arose in the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but both the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association explicitly reaffirmed the duty to treat. Both professional societies appealed to fairness, stating that a patient should not be subjected to discrimination based on any characteristic, including disease status. There is a utilitarian argument to be made in support of this personal risk exception: if a provider treats and subsequently contracts Ebola from one patient, then that provider’s other patients might suffer. However, in the United States, healthcare associated transmission of Ebola remains an incredibly rare event, and a utilitarian analysis does not fall in favor of refusing to treat Ebola patients. Two of the 170+ people who had direct or possible contact with the three Ebola patients from Dallas contracted the virus, and no healthcare provider has died from Ebola transmission in the United States. To put this number in context, an estimated one in ten healthcare workers experiences a needle stick each year, placing them at risk for blood borne pathogens such as HIV and Hepatitis C. Providing care for sick patients inherently carries a certain degree of risk, but so long as providers are able to mitigate that risk through personal protective equipment and standard precautions, this does not excuse them from their professional responsibilities.

In conclusion, the basic principles of medical ethics unequivocally support treatment of Ebola patients. Ebola patients can present in critical condition and require timely medical care, thus placing them in the category of a medical emergency and further obligating providers and hospitals to accept these patients for treatment. Personal risk might be an important consideration, but the risk of transmission can be appropriately mitigated through proper protective equipment in the United States. Ebola patient in room 3? That announcement will never sound routine, but we must treat even these patients fairly and by the highest standards of medical care. 

Avi is currently an MD/MBE candidate at the University of Pennsylvania. She graduated from Vanderbuilt University in 2011 with a degree in biology and philosophy. This post was chosen as a finalist for the 2014-2015 Daniel Callahan Young Writer’s Prize. 

Hobby Lobby and Freedom from Religious Employers

By Naomi Scheinerman

The decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores has been severely scrutinized, from rebukes against corporate personhood to feminists decrying that the Court’s majority, five conservative male judges, devalue and deny women’s personhood. Justice Ginsburg’s scathing dissent and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan’s equally passionate disapproval offer a gendered lens that is impossible to ignore. And further, the Hobby Lobby decision actually does far more harm than good in protecting religious freedoms.

First, Hobby Lobby’s anti-contraception argument relies on fallacious scientific claims that will facilitate further violations of the corporation’s religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby objects to the two IUD’s and Plan B and Ella (emergency contraception) by claiming that using them is akin to having an abortion. This is false. Plan B and Ella prevent ovulation which prevents pregnancy after sex. The International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics published a study concluding that because Plan B does not inhibit implantation, it is therefore not an “abortifacient,” a substance that induces abortion. Because Hobby Lobby argued that emergency contraception equals abortions, when in fact emergency contraception does NOT equal abortions, the Court should have thrown out Hobby Lobby’s arguments. As a result of this decision, women who work for Hobby Lobby and are now denied emergency contraception coverage will be much more likely to seek an abortion in their future. Half of women who purchase Plan B do so because of unplanned pregnancy (which includes both consensual and non-consensual sex). Hobby Lobby is paving the way for more abortions, not fewer.

Second, Hobby Lobby’s small closely held corporation’s religious freedoms are being protected at the expense of the freedom from religious imposition on its employees who rely on health insurance to access reproductive freedoms. A closely held company is one in which five or fewer people own the majority of the company. Not only is it strange to treat a corporation as a person with its own convictions, but this decision shows that the Court prefers the religious arguments of a few people in charge over the views of many more who actually work for the corporation. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) – the legislation that Hobby Lobby claimed the contraception mandate violated - was originally enacted to protect Native Americans from laws that burdened their exercise of religion. As such, the RFRA was originally constructed to protect employees from theburdensome religious standards of employers and laws. In fact, Catholic and other Christian denominations were even opposed to the RFRA initially because they thought it would protect the “right to a religiously-motivated abortion.” Even if an employee of Hobby Lobby does not have a religious conviction to use contraception, the employers of Hobby Lobby are imposing their religious views by forcing the employees’ actions to align with their own religious practices that forbid abortions. An individual at Hobby Lobby, who is not one of the five people in the entire corporation who wants to prevent contraceptive access, is burdened, something the RFRA was meant to prevent, not allow.

Third, there is real danger in granting religious freedom to corporations that claim exemptions to laws. In Callahan v. Woods, for example, taxpayers used the RFRA to object to the use of social security numbers, arguing that they related to the “mark of the beast.” The Court dismissed this argument. Since the release of the Hobby Lobby decision, many companies have come out of the woodwork, claiming religious exemption to other laws that ban discrimination in hiring or protect women’s reproductive freedoms. The Court ruled that the religious freedom is protected when the law imposes a “substantial burden” on the corporation. This should be interpreted to what the corporation does (its business and goals) rather than how the five or fewer owners feel about the actions of their employees. Is it a substantial burdensome to the selling of paint and brushes to allow female employees to obtain emergency contraption or an IUD?

My last fear is that real and compelling claims of religious exemption, wherein an employer or employee has a true and ethical, religious  belief that a law severely infringes, will become watered down by the numerous unethical claims. About 90% of all American businesses fit the category of closelyheld.  Corporations should not be in the business of determining the appropriate health care package for employees based on religious convictions when it overrides the individual employees’ values. This places an inordinate amount of control on employees’ actions outside the office, such as their reproductive decisions, something the Supreme Court declared was protected by the right to privacy. Employers should not define employee competency by her personal life decisions, but rather based on qualifications and aptitude for the job. This is why employers should not discriminate against gay applicants and should not dictate the sexual freedom of its female employees. Justice Ginsburg accurate identified the dangers of the Hobby Lobby decision: it validates inordinately unethical claims of religious exemption that employers have no right to make.

Naomi Scheinerman is a Research Assistant at The Hastings Center. She graduated Phi Beta Kappa, with high honors and in distinction from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, where she received bachelor’s degrees in philosophy, political science, and Hebrew and Jewish Cultural Studies. She contributes a bi-weekly column on reproductive health.

Organ Donations: It is Time to “Opt-Out” of Our Current Policy

By: Michael DiBello

In bioethics today, there is a wide array of fiercely contested topics such as abortion, euthanasia and novel fertility treatments, which have made the front pages of newspapers around the globe. While these undoubtedly important issues demand a thorough dialogue, some equally important policy issues seem to slip under the radar. 

One of these issues is our policy for organ transplantation.

On average, approximately 18 U.S. residents die per day awaiting a transplant, totaling over 6,500 per year. Only about 45% of the adult U.S. population are registered as donors. Many lives could be saved and significantly enhanced if more people were registered as organ donors. The question becomes: how do we increase the donor pool in a fair, ethically responsible manner?

In the United States, individuals must opt-in to become a donor by checking a box on a driver’s license application or by signing up online. This “opt-in” system of organ donation is inadequate not only from an efficiency perspective, but from a moral perspective as well. Many countries have adopted an alternative system to the opt-in policy, where the default position for adults is set to being a donor, with an option to opt-out. This system is generally referred to as an opt-out policy. Countries with an opt-out style policy like France, Austria, Poland, Hungary and Portugal display donor consent rates of over 99%. Countries with an opt-in style policy like the United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands and Denmark display rates drastically lower donor consent rates under 30%. 

Why is it exactly that people do not give consent to become an organ donor? One possible reason may be the immediate and intimidating nature of the decision for an individual. Organ transplantation may evoke images of dismemberment, drastic surgery and death, instilling apprehension and anxiety in the individual, resulting in a decision to not actively volunteer to become a donor. While the emotional responses regarding organ transplantation are understandable, they do not make the decision to decline becoming an organ donor morally correct. 

It intuitively seems fair that if one is willing to receive a transplant (I assume the vast majority of people are), then one should also be willing to donate their own organs, especially in the situation of scarcity involved in organ availability. This is exactly why it is the state’s responsibility to provide the guidance of an opt-out system. Part of the reason for the existence of the state is to encourage individual decisions which are beneficial to the overall public, especially when those decisions involve little to no significant sacrifice for the individual. The opt-out system donor pool would include all donors that currently actively choose to be donors under the opt-in system, those who would become donors with a little more consideration and/or state guidance and also those who are simply indifferent to what happens to their organs. This could likely mean a very significant increase in the donor pool with no coercion, injustice or unfairness done. 

 

What if an individual really does have strong feeling against being a donor? In the opt-out system one can imagine, they are entirely free opt-out without consequence. A possible mechanism for the action of opting out could involve checking a box on an application for a government ID. A whole separate debate may be necessary for the issue of automatically registering children as donors, as they may not possess a sufficient degree of autonomy to make a fully informed decision about organ donation. Should the default donor position apply to children, with the decision to opt-out left up to the parents? Should the default donor position simply not apply to children at all? These are difficult but important questions, especially considering the clear physical constraints of other children in need of organs.

One possible objection to the opt-out policy is that is a coercive state policy, since it defaults to an individual giving up something they may consider valuable (the right to an intact body after death). As mentioned previously, the opt-out policy still affords the individual this right. All that is required is simply more conscious consideration about exactly what they are doing.

Adding quality years to as many lives as possible is more important than the temporary preservation of the physical integrity of a corpse. This is the attitude necessary in order to be on track to a policy change. Our current organ donation system is failing, and an opt-out policy would bring about greater fairness in a society where increased access to healthcare is a goal that should be pursued to the highest possible degree. 

Mike graduated from Northeastern University in January 2014 with a major in biology and a minor in ethics. He is interested in a wide range of issues in bioethics and how they are applied in today's world.