Danielle Novetsky Friedman1,2,3, Liz Blackler3, Yesne Alici3,4, Amy E Scharf3, Martin Chin3,4, Sanjay Chawla3,5,6, Monique C James3,4, Louis P Voigt3,5,6. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY. 3. Ethics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 5. Department of Anesthesiology, Pain, and Critical Care Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 6. Department of Anesthesiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised a variety of ethical dilemmas for health care providers. Limited data are available on how a patient's concomitant cancer diagnosis affected ethical concerns raised during the early stages of the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all COVID-related ethics consultations registered in a prospectively collected ethics database at a tertiary cancer center between March 14, 2020, and April 28, 2020. Primary and secondary ethical issues, as well as important contextual factors, were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical ethics consultations were performed on 24 patients with cancer (58.3% male; median age, 65.5 years). The most common primary ethical issues were code status (n = 11), obligation to provide nonbeneficial treatment (n = 3), patient autonomy (n = 3), resource allocation (n = 3), and delivery of care wherein the risk to staff might outweigh the potential benefit to the patient (n = 3). An additional nine consultations raised concerns about staff safety in the context of likely nonbeneficial treatment as a secondary issue. Unique contextual issues identified included concerns about public safety for patients requesting discharge against medical advice (n = 3) and difficulties around decision making, especially with regard to code status because of an inability to reach surrogates (n = 3). CONCLUSION: During the early pandemic, the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 spurred a number of ethics consultations, which were largely focused on code status. Most cases also raised concerns about staff safety in the context of limited benefit to patients, a highly unusual scenario at our institution that may have been triggered by critical supply shortages.
PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised a variety of ethical dilemmas for health care providers. Limited data are available on how a patient's concomitant cancer diagnosis affected ethical concerns raised during the early stages of the pandemic. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all COVID-related ethics consultations registered in a prospectively collected ethics database at a tertiary cancer center between March 14, 2020, and April 28, 2020. Primary and secondary ethical issues, as well as important contextual factors, were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical ethics consultations were performed on 24 patients with cancer (58.3% male; median age, 65.5 years). The most common primary ethical issues were code status (n = 11), obligation to provide nonbeneficial treatment (n = 3), patient autonomy (n = 3), resource allocation (n = 3), and delivery of care wherein the risk to staff might outweigh the potential benefit to the patient (n = 3). An additional nine consultations raised concerns about staff safety in the context of likely nonbeneficial treatment as a secondary issue. Unique contextual issues identified included concerns about public safety for patients requesting discharge against medical advice (n = 3) and difficulties around decision making, especially with regard to code status because of an inability to reach surrogates (n = 3). CONCLUSION: During the early pandemic, the care of patients with cancer and COVID-19 spurred a number of ethics consultations, which were largely focused on code status. Most cases also raised concerns about staff safety in the context of limited benefit to patients, a highly unusual scenario at our institution that may have been triggered by critical supply shortages.
Authors: Meredith C Winter; Danielle Novetsky Friedman; Mary S McCabe; Louis P Voigt Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2019-01-21 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Andrew G Shuman; Sacha M Montas; Andrew R Barnosky; Lauren B Smith; Joseph J Fins; Mary S McCabe Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Armand H Matheny Antommaria; Tyler S Gibb; Amy L McGuire; Paul Root Wolpe; Matthew K Wynia; Megan K Applewhite; Arthur Caplan; Douglas S Diekema; D Micah Hester; Lisa Soleymani Lehmann; Renee McLeod-Sordjan; Tamar Schiff; Holly K Tabor; Sarah E Wieten; Jason T Eberl Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Priya H Marathe; Hao Zhang; Liz Blackler; Peter D Stetson; Louis P Voigt; Danielle Novetsky Friedman Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2022-06-24
Authors: Ugur Sener; Elizabeth C Neil; Amy Scharf; Alan C Carver; Justin B Buthorn; Dana Bossert; Allison M Sigler; Louis P Voigt; Eli L Diamond Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2021-06-19
Authors: Liz Blackler; Amy E Scharf; James N Masciale; Kathleen A Lynch; Jamie C Riches; Konstantina Matsoukas; Michelle Colletti; Lisa Wall; Sanjay Chawla; Nessa Coyle; Yesne Alici; Rebecca Guest; Louis P Voigt Journal: Res Sq Date: 2021-03-24
Authors: Kimberly S Erler; Ellen M Robinson; Julia I Bandini; Eva V Regel; Mary Zwirner; Cornelia Cremens; Thomas H McCoy; Fred Romain; Andrew Courtwright Journal: HEC Forum Date: 2022-03-15
Authors: Laura P Gelfman; Jaison Moreno; Julia L Frydman; Joshua Singer; Jane Houldsworth; Carlos Cordon-Cardo; Meenakshi Mehrotra; Emily Chai; Melissa Aldridge; Rolfe S Morrison Journal: Med Care Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 2.983