COVID-19 ventilator rationing protocols: why we need to know more about the views of those with most to lose

December 23, 2020

Kerr W, Schmidt H.

J Med Ethics

Vulnerable groups have been and evidently continue to be excluded from research and eventually political decision-making. This article shows six different studies that assess the opinion of the disadvantaged community in the allocation of a ventilator. They evaluated for the most part saving lives or years of life, and only two studies included helping the most disadvantaged, showing that black populations are less likely to use the principle of saving more lives compared to white participants. Of the participants, only 11.8% belonged to vulnerable populations, only one study showed Hispanic populations, and none took into account indigenous communities, showing that there is an exclusion in the evaluation of vulnerable populations. This encourages the continued structural disadvantage of disadvantaged populations in decision-making and may be influenced by systemic inequity, which is why it is necessary to carry out more studies in these populations.

Kerr W, Schmidt H. COVID-19 ventilator rationing protocols: why we need to know more about the views of those with most to lose [published online ahead of print, 2020 Dec 23]. J Med Ethics. 2020;medethics-2020-106948. doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-106948

Partners