Journal
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages 48-63Publisher
ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1851809
Keywords
Age; discrimination; frailty; intensive care; rationing
Funding
- Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities [203132/Z/16/Z]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
In early 2020, many countries developed intensive care triage guidelines in response to the pandemic, with some guidelines explicitly assessing frailty. Frailty has important implications for resource allocation, affecting survival probability, longevity, and quality of life. The rejection of claims of unjust discrimination based on frailty in triage highlights the need for ethical basis and consistent assessment in all patients referred to the intensive care unit.
In early 2020, a number of countries developed and published intensive care triage guidelines for the pandemic. Several of those guidelines, especially in the UK, encouraged the explicit assessment of clinical frailty as part of triage. Frailty is relevant to resource allocation in at least three separate ways, through its impact on probability of survival, longevity and quality of life (though not a fourth-length of intensive care stay). I review and reject claims that frailty-based triage would represent unjust discrimination on the grounds of age or disability. I outline three important steps to improve the ethical incorporation of frailty into triage. Triage criteria (ie frailty) should be assessed consistently in all patients referred to the intensive care unit. Guidelines must make explicit the ethical basis for the triage decision. This can then be applied, using the concept of triage equivalence, to other (non-frail) patients referred to intensive care.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available