Posted on 02/16/2022 12:46:34 PM PST by nickcarraway
University of Iowa’s Dr. Lauris Kaldjian discusses ethics behind basing care on COVID vaccine status
Should COVID-19 vaccine status determine health care?
Ethics in medicine tell us providers should never limit or deny care to someone based on vaccine status, a University of Iowa expert says.
The pandemic’s latest surge, driven by the highly transmissible omicron variant of the coronavirus, resulted in a major uptick in COVID-19 cases that threatened to overwhelm hospitals in Iowa and across the nation. Health care system leaders warned they may not have capacity for all patients in need if they ever reached their breaking point.
The situation has changed, and hospitalizations statewide have been dropping in recent weeks. Case counts and positivity rates are also on the decline, according to the latest coronavirus data.
Even at the height of the surge, vaccination rates did not dramatically change. As of this week, about 61 percent of all eligible Iowans 5 and older are fully vaccinated. In most cases, the most severely ill patients in hospitals were those not fully vaccinated.
Some have argued unvaccinated patients should be prioritized last for care, or even be turned away all together. Many people have expressed these opinions on social media. Some public figures — such as Howard Stern — used their platforms to voice these thoughts publicly.
But according to the Hippocratic oath and other principles followed by medical professionals, a patient’s choice to not be vaccinated should not be a basis to deny them care.
“It would be unethical to refuse to treat a patient who is in need of medical care,” said Dr. Lauris Kaldjian.
“When we treat people according to their needs, we don’t withhold treatment when someone has not done what we think they could have done to avoid getting sick.” — Dr. Lauris Kaldjian, University of Iowa ethicist Kaldjian is the Richard M. Caplan Chair in biomedical ethics and medical humanities at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, where he teaches ethical decision-making in the clinical setting and other topics to medical students.
He’s also on the ethics committee at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and serves as a consultant on the hospital’s ethics consult service, helping other providers navigate the moral and ethical issues that may arise in patient care.
Health care providers must treat all patients equally based on their needs, and not their merit or on what someone else thinks they deserve, Kaldjian said.
“And when we treat people according to their needs, we don’t withhold treatment when someone has not done what we think they could have done to avoid getting sick,” he said.
In a hypothetical situation where COVID-19 overwhelms hospital resources and limits capacity, that duty remains the same, Kaldjian said.
That’s also true whether patients have followed other healthy behaviors recommended by providers. A smoking habit, for example, wouldn’t stop them from receiving treatment, he said.
Access to care traditionally not based on patient behavior Ethics must be consistent, Kaldjian said. Because access to health care has not been based on patients’ behavior before, it should not apply to this modern question around COVID-19 vaccinations.
“Generally, we can’t just apply it to the thing we care about right now in the moment,” he said. “We need to ask, what are the implications for this reason? If we don’t like the broader implications of that reason, then you have to retract and realize the reason wasn’t as compelling as it felt like it was.”
It is a care provider’s job is to recommend treatments to improve patients’ health, and education about the importance of healthy habits, including vaccinations, is part of that role.
But at the same time, they should never force patients to accept treatments they don’t want. Kaldjian said medical professionals should respect patients’ dignity and freedom to make decisions — “even if we think a patient is making a decision that will bring them harm.”
“This is a basic liberty we should all respect, and it gets at another fundamental part of medical ethics, which is the need to respect patients as persons, rather than treating them as mere bodies,” Kaldjian said.
The American Medical Association, the largest association of physicians in the country, continually emphasized this commitment as calls to deny care to unvaccinated people have persisted throughout the pandemic.
Comparison to AIDS epidemic in 1990s Kaldjian said he saw a similar scenario in the 1990s during the AIDS epidemic. There was a belief among some that patients with HIV infections should not be cared for because they were responsible for their infection. However, Kaldjian said the broader medical community spoke out against this belief and reaffirmed the duty to care for all patients, regardless of the choices that may have led to their infection.
It’s also important to consider why people may choose not to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Kaldjian said it’s safe to assume everyone wants to do what is healthy for them, and that they may have a good reason for believing the vaccine is the best way to be healthy.
“What is most likely happening in such cases, I think, is that people who decline vaccination have simply reached a different conclusion about the benefits and risks of vaccination,” he said.
In fact breathing and having a heartbeat are pre-existing conditions.
No medical treatment for anyone!
It's an indictment of the times that I'm actually surprised that a medical ethicist would say it was wrong to deny treatment to people for not obeying the government.
As a person who has progressive multiple sclerosis, I can assure everyone that today’s medical and ethical treatment of people can kill you. Most of the MS crowd runs from medicine to medicine hoping for a cure, but there isn’t one. So I suppose all that medical attention and experimentation has hurt more than helped. I got off the medical carousel several years ago and have gotten better. I still have MS, but with a little common sense and a homeopathic doctor, I am living a much better (and cheaper) life!
I’m glad to hear you are trying to adapt. I hope you forge a path for others who have it.
In the part of Texas I came from, saying somebody needs to die is a good way to get your own lamp blown out.
Imagine the merriment that would ensue if we hosted a discussion as to whether or not ethicists who want to deny medical care should be allowed to walk the streets without being assassinated by angry victims and family members. It’s the exact same discussion but they would decide we were terrorists.
Also, note the subtle shift of verbiage. They are discussing healthcare as some monolithic asset to be distributed as the government sees fit. Not as something anyone is free to purchase and use as the see fit.
“Denied health care” by who?
The Gestapo?
You can get away with that nonsense in San Francisco (or maybe not given how the San Francisco school board members were voted out). Not so much in Iowa.
Great video. I like this woman.
Good for you... my FRiend!!
White folks and now the unvaxed are denied medical care by evil and stupid leftists.
Fake vaxes don’t even work and I am tired of paying for the fools who got fake vaxed blood clots, heart attacks, cracked skulls and neuro disorders.
Any time you see the words “Medical Ethics” offer the same skepticism as you do to the word “Public Education”. The same Utilitarian philosophy drives them both. Those who practice the above have long ago concluded rights of the human person just gets in the way of a better world.
Unvaccinated people have ammo.
well isn’t the goal to reduce the population?
Yep. She speaks the truth in a very clear manner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.