Resource allocation after a nuclear detonation incident: Unaltered standards of ethical decision making

J. Jaime Caro, Evan G. DeRenzo, C. Norman Coleman, David M. Weinstock, Ann R. Knebel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article provides practical ethical guidance for clinicians making decisions after a nuclear detonation, in advance of the full establishment of a coordinated response. We argue that the utilitarian maxim of the greatest good for the greatest number, interpreted only as "the most lives saved," needs refinement. We take the philosophical position that utilitarian efficiency should be tempered by the principle of fairness in making decisions about providing lifesaving interventions and palliation. The most practical way to achieve these goals is to mirror the ethical precepts of routine clinical practice, in which 3 factors govern resource allocation: order of presentation, patient's medical need, and effectiveness of an intervention. Although these basic ethical standards do not change, priority is given in a crisis to those at highest need inwhominterventions are expected to be effective. If available resources will not be effective in meeting the need, then it is unfair to expend them and they should be allocated to another patient with high need and greater expectation for survival if treated. As shortage becomes critical, thresholds for intervention become more stringent. Although the focus of providers will be on the victims of the event, the needs of patients already receiving care before the detonation also must be considered. Those not allocated intervention must still be provided as much appropriate comfort, assistance, relief of symptoms, and explanations as possible, given the available resources. Reassessment of patients' clinical status and priority for intervention also should be conducted with regularity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalDisaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
Volume5
Issue numberSUPPL. 1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Resource Allocation
Decision Making
Survival

Keywords

  • Efficiency
  • Ethics
  • Need
  • Nuclear detonation
  • Priority setting
  • Resource allocation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Resource allocation after a nuclear detonation incident : Unaltered standards of ethical decision making. / Caro, J. Jaime; DeRenzo, Evan G.; Coleman, C. Norman; Weinstock, David M.; Knebel, Ann R.

In: Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Vol. 5, No. SUPPL. 1, 03.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Caro, J. Jaime ; DeRenzo, Evan G. ; Coleman, C. Norman ; Weinstock, David M. ; Knebel, Ann R. / Resource allocation after a nuclear detonation incident : Unaltered standards of ethical decision making. In: Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness. 2011 ; Vol. 5, No. SUPPL. 1.
@article{6d4d08764d514bdaa21420116308fa28,
title = "Resource allocation after a nuclear detonation incident: Unaltered standards of ethical decision making",
abstract = "This article provides practical ethical guidance for clinicians making decisions after a nuclear detonation, in advance of the full establishment of a coordinated response. We argue that the utilitarian maxim of the greatest good for the greatest number, interpreted only as {"}the most lives saved,{"} needs refinement. We take the philosophical position that utilitarian efficiency should be tempered by the principle of fairness in making decisions about providing lifesaving interventions and palliation. The most practical way to achieve these goals is to mirror the ethical precepts of routine clinical practice, in which 3 factors govern resource allocation: order of presentation, patient's medical need, and effectiveness of an intervention. Although these basic ethical standards do not change, priority is given in a crisis to those at highest need inwhominterventions are expected to be effective. If available resources will not be effective in meeting the need, then it is unfair to expend them and they should be allocated to another patient with high need and greater expectation for survival if treated. As shortage becomes critical, thresholds for intervention become more stringent. Although the focus of providers will be on the victims of the event, the needs of patients already receiving care before the detonation also must be considered. Those not allocated intervention must still be provided as much appropriate comfort, assistance, relief of symptoms, and explanations as possible, given the available resources. Reassessment of patients' clinical status and priority for intervention also should be conducted with regularity.",
keywords = "Efficiency, Ethics, Need, Nuclear detonation, Priority setting, Resource allocation",
author = "Caro, {J. Jaime} and DeRenzo, {Evan G.} and Coleman, {C. Norman} and Weinstock, {David M.} and Knebel, {Ann R.}",
year = "2011",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1001/dmp.2011.14",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
journal = "Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness",
issn = "1935-7893",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "SUPPL. 1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resource allocation after a nuclear detonation incident

T2 - Unaltered standards of ethical decision making

AU - Caro, J. Jaime

AU - DeRenzo, Evan G.

AU - Coleman, C. Norman

AU - Weinstock, David M.

AU - Knebel, Ann R.

PY - 2011/3

Y1 - 2011/3

N2 - This article provides practical ethical guidance for clinicians making decisions after a nuclear detonation, in advance of the full establishment of a coordinated response. We argue that the utilitarian maxim of the greatest good for the greatest number, interpreted only as "the most lives saved," needs refinement. We take the philosophical position that utilitarian efficiency should be tempered by the principle of fairness in making decisions about providing lifesaving interventions and palliation. The most practical way to achieve these goals is to mirror the ethical precepts of routine clinical practice, in which 3 factors govern resource allocation: order of presentation, patient's medical need, and effectiveness of an intervention. Although these basic ethical standards do not change, priority is given in a crisis to those at highest need inwhominterventions are expected to be effective. If available resources will not be effective in meeting the need, then it is unfair to expend them and they should be allocated to another patient with high need and greater expectation for survival if treated. As shortage becomes critical, thresholds for intervention become more stringent. Although the focus of providers will be on the victims of the event, the needs of patients already receiving care before the detonation also must be considered. Those not allocated intervention must still be provided as much appropriate comfort, assistance, relief of symptoms, and explanations as possible, given the available resources. Reassessment of patients' clinical status and priority for intervention also should be conducted with regularity.

AB - This article provides practical ethical guidance for clinicians making decisions after a nuclear detonation, in advance of the full establishment of a coordinated response. We argue that the utilitarian maxim of the greatest good for the greatest number, interpreted only as "the most lives saved," needs refinement. We take the philosophical position that utilitarian efficiency should be tempered by the principle of fairness in making decisions about providing lifesaving interventions and palliation. The most practical way to achieve these goals is to mirror the ethical precepts of routine clinical practice, in which 3 factors govern resource allocation: order of presentation, patient's medical need, and effectiveness of an intervention. Although these basic ethical standards do not change, priority is given in a crisis to those at highest need inwhominterventions are expected to be effective. If available resources will not be effective in meeting the need, then it is unfair to expend them and they should be allocated to another patient with high need and greater expectation for survival if treated. As shortage becomes critical, thresholds for intervention become more stringent. Although the focus of providers will be on the victims of the event, the needs of patients already receiving care before the detonation also must be considered. Those not allocated intervention must still be provided as much appropriate comfort, assistance, relief of symptoms, and explanations as possible, given the available resources. Reassessment of patients' clinical status and priority for intervention also should be conducted with regularity.

KW - Efficiency

KW - Ethics

KW - Need

KW - Nuclear detonation

KW - Priority setting

KW - Resource allocation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953020685&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953020685&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/dmp.2011.14

DO - 10.1001/dmp.2011.14

M3 - Article

C2 - 21402811

AN - SCOPUS:79953020685

VL - 5

JO - Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness

JF - Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness

SN - 1935-7893

IS - SUPPL. 1

ER -