This paper focuses on a range of ethical issues related to pandemics, especially allocation of scarce resources (ventilators, ECMO).

The DREAMS Team research advocacy training program helps clinical faculty and health students introduce basic clinical research concepts to diverse older adults to galvanize their active involvement in the research process. Older adults are frequently underrepresented in clinical research, due to barriers to participation including distrust, historical mistreatment, and their lack of health literacy. The DREAMS Team program aims to involve diverse older adults throughout all phases of research and increase research participation, thereby contributing to the growth of quality patient-centered, evidence-based health care. This course was developed for clinical faculty to deliver to diverse adults aged 55+ in eight 50-minute lectures, followed by half-hour small group discussions moderated by health students. A pilot cohort of 24 individuals was assessed for satisfaction post-program, and self-efficacy before and after the program. Older adult participants improved on a survey measure of self-efficacy, and indicated satisfaction on a post-program questionnaire. All agreed or strongly agreed that they enjoyed participating, and that classes enhanced knowledge/skills about the topics, were high quality, and provided useful information. Twenty-two out of 24 individuals who completed the program indicated they planned to get involved as research advocates. The DREAMS Team program can be offered either on its own, or as a follow-up program to a general health education course led by health students and/or professional researchers or clinicians. Educating older adults about the research process and advocacy through interactive seminars led by congenial and respectful researchers and health students may remove some barriers to research participation and involvement among diverse older adults.

To reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its associated impacts on health and society, COVID-19 vaccines are essential. The U.S. government is working to produce and deliver safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines for the entire U.S. population. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)1 has broadly outlined its approach for developing recommendations for the use of each COVID-19 vaccine authorized or approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization or licensure.1 ACIP’s recommendation process includes an explicit and transparent evidence-based method for assessing a vaccine’s safety and efficacy as well as consideration of other factors, including implementation.2 Because the initial supply of vaccine will likely be limited, ACIP will also recommend which groups should receive the earliest allocations of vaccine. The ACIP COVID-19 Vaccines Work Group and consultants with expertise in ethics and health equity considered external expert committee reports and published literature and deliberated the ethical issues associated with COVID-19 vaccine allocation decisions. The purpose of this report is to describe the four ethical principles that will assist ACIP in formulating recommendations for the allocation of COVID-19 vaccine while supply is limited, in addition to scientific data and implementation feasibility: (1) maximize benefits and minimize harms; (2) promote justice; (3) mitigate health inequities; and (4) promote transparency. These principles can also aid state, tribal, local, and territorial public health authorities as they develop vaccine implementation strategies within their own communities based on ACIP recommendations.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has forced healthcare systems to develop strategies to allocate critical care resources when demand outstrips supply (1). The pandemic has also disproportionately impacted Black patients (2, 3), for whom baseline health disparities are well documented and largely driven by inequity in social determinants of health. Concerns about the potential for inequity in resource allocation were raised early in the pandemic, especially if morbidity limiting near-term survival was factored into allocation decisions. Two mitigation strategies to avoid inequity in allocation have been proposed: eliminating consideration of expected survival beyond 1 year and incorporating measures of social disadvantage such as the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) (2, 4, 5).

Objective To identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (WWLST) for extremely low gestational age neonates. Design Observational study of prospectively collected registry data from 19 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network centres on neonates born at 22-28 weeks gestation who died >12 hours through 120 days of age during 2011-2016. Sociodemographic and clinical factors were compared between infants who died following WWLST and without WWLST. Results Of 1168 deaths, 67.1% occurred following WWLST. Withdrawal of assisted ventilation (97.4%) was the primary modality. WWLST rates were inversely proportional to gestational age. Life-sustaining treatment was withheld or withdrawn more often for non-Hispanic white infants than for non-Hispanic black infants (72.7% vs 60.4%; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.92) or Hispanic infants (72.7% vs 67.2%; 95% CI 1.32 to 3.72). WWLST rates varied across centres (38.6-92.6%; p<0.001). The centre with the highest rate had adjusted odds 4.89 times greater than the average (95% CI 1.18 to 20.18). The adjusted odds of WWLST were higher for infants with necrotiing enterocolitis (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.59) and severe brain injury (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.74). Conclusions Among infants who died, WWLST rates varied widely across centres and were associated with gestational age, race, ethnicity, necrotiing enterocolitis, and severe brain injury. Further exploration is needed into how race, centre, and approaches to care of infants with necrotiing enterocolitis and severe brain injury influence WWLST.

Given an observed tension between perceived privacy restrictions and meaningful social connection in assisted living (AL) and using a relational perspective, we conducted a secondary thematic analysis of health information sharing practices among residents and their care partners in one large urban AL community in metropolitan Atlanta. Data included in-depth interviews with residents (n = 26), family members (n = 20), AL staff (n = 11), and external care workers (n = 4) as well as ethnographic data from observations and informal conversations conducted with these participants and others. Findings showed that health information sharing among residents was helpful in building social relationships; barriers to this communication contributed to isolation. Inappropriate public exchange of residents’ healthcare information hindered building these relationships. Negotiating privacy boundaries for health information sharing was an ongoing confusing process across the community. Based on the findings, we propose new guidelines for health information sharing and additional privacy training for residents and care partners.

With rapid advances in neuroimaging technology, there is growing concern over potential misuse of neuroradiologic imaging data in legal matters. On December 7 and 8, 2012, a multidisciplinary consensus conference, Use and Abuse of Neuroimaging in the Courtroom, was held at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Through this interactive forum, a highly select group of experts - including neuroradiologists, neurologists, forensic psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, neuroscientists, legal scholars, imaging statisticians, judges, practicing attorneys, and neuroethicists - discussed the complex issues involved in the use of neuroimaging data entered into legal evidence and for associated expert testimony. The specific contexts of criminal cases, child abuse, and head trauma were especially considered. The purpose of the conference was to inform the development of guidelines on expert testimony for the American Society of Neuroradiology and to provide principles for courts on the ethical use of neuroimaging data as evidence. This report summarizes the conference and resulting recommendations.