Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

The Korean Society for Preventive Medicine (대한예방의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Public Preferences for Allocation Principles for Scarce Medical Resources in the COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea: Comparisons With Ethicists' Recommendations

  • Lee, Ji-Su (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Soyun (Institute of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University Medical Research Center) ;
  • Do, Young Kyung (Department of Health Policy and Management, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2021.06.15
  • Accepted : 2021.08.09
  • Published : 2021.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate public preferences regarding allocation principles for scarce medical resources in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly in comparison with the recommendations of ethicists. Methods: An online survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 1509 adults residing in Korea, from November 2 to 5, 2020. The degree of agreement with resource allocation principles in the context of the medical resource constraints precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic was examined. The results were then compared with ethicists' recommendations. We also examined whether the perceived severity of COVID-19 explained differences in individual preferences, and by doing so, whether perceived severity helps explain discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists' recommendations. Results: Overall, the public of Korea agreed strongly with the principles of "save the most lives," "Koreans first," and "sickest first," but less with "random selection," in contrast to the recommendations of ethicists. "Save the most lives" was given the highest priority by both the public and ethicists. Higher perceived severity of the pandemic was associated with a greater likelihood of agreeing with allocation principles based on utilitarianism, as well as those promoting and rewarding social usefulness, in line with the opinions of expert ethicists. Conclusions: The general public of Korea preferred rationing scarce medical resources in the COVID-19 pandemic predominantly based on utilitarianism, identity and prioritarianism, rather than egalitarianism. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for discrepancies between public preferences and ethicists' recommendations.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 0411-20200041).

References

  1. Ranney ML, Griffeth V, Jha AK. Critical supply shortages - the need for ventilators and personal protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic. N Engl J Med 2020;382(18):e41. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2006141
  2. Kwon HK. Luckily, I bought my first public mask in 16 minutes. BabyNews; 2020 Mar 12 [cited 2021 May 26]. Available from: https://www.ibabynews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=83296.
  3. Park JY. The cumulative number of COVID-19 patients who died while waiting for hospitalization reached 8. Hankyoreh; 2020 Dec 18 [cited 2021 May 26]. Available from: https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/974970.html.
  4. Maves RC, Downar J, Dichter JR, Hick JL, Devereaux A, Geiling JA, et al. Triage of scarce critical care resources in COVID-19 an implementation guide for regional allocation: an expert panel report of the task force for mass critical care and the American College of Chest Physicians. Chest 2020;158(1):212-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.063
  5. Lee KD. How should scarce healthcare resources be rationed during the COVID-19 pandemic? Korean J Med Ethics 2020; 23(3):145-169. https://doi.org/10.35301/KSME.2020.23.3.145
  6. Truog RD, Mitchell C, Daley GQ. The toughest triage - allocating ventilators in a pandemic. N Engl J Med 2020;382(21):1973-1975. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2005689
  7. Emanuel EJ, Persad G, Upshur R, Thome B, Parker M, Glickman A, et al. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020;382(21):2049-2055. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb2005114
  8. Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ. Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet 2009;373(9661):423-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60137-9
  9. Savulescu J, Persson I, Wilkinson D. Utilitarianism and the pandemic. Bioethics 2020;34(6):620-632. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12771
  10. Michalsen A, Vergano M, Quintel M, Sadovnikoff N, Truog RD. Epilogue: critical care during a pandemic-a shift from deontology to utilitarianism? In: Michalsen A, Sadovnikoff N, editors. Compelling ethical challenges in critical care and emergency medicine. Cham: Springer; 2020, p. 157-166.
  11. Grover S, McClelland A, Furnham A. Preferences for scarce medical resource allocation: differences between experts and the general public and implications for the COVID-19 pandemic. Br J Health Psychol 2020;25(4):889-901. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12439
  12. Fallucchi F, Faravelli M, Quercia S. Fair allocation of scarce medical resources in the time of COVID-19: what do people think? J Med Ethics 2021;47(1):3-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106524
  13. Schicktanz S, Schweda M, Wynne B. The ethics of 'public understanding of ethics'--why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients' voices. Med Health Care Philos 2012;15(2):129-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-011-9321-4
  14. Baker R, Mason H, McHugh N, Donaldson C. Public values and plurality in health priority setting: what to do when people disagree and why we should care about reasons as well as choices. Soc Sci Med 2021;277:113892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113892
  15. Persad G. Public preferences about fairness and the ethics of allocating scarce medical interventions. In: Li M, Tracer DP, editors. Interdisciplinary perspectives on fairness, equity, and justice. Cham: Springer; 2017, p. 51-65.
  16. Rosenbaum L. Facing Covid-19 in Italy - ethics, logistics, and therapeutics on the epidemic's front line. N Engl J Med 2020; 382(20):1873-1875. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2005492
  17. Lee IH. Distributive justice in the COVID-19 era. Bio Ethics Policy 2020;4(2):19-37.
  18. Huh JS, Kim KY. Legal issues pertaining to the triage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Bio Ethics Policy 2020;4(2):39-60.
  19. Kim J. Setting priorities for medical resource allocation of emergency treatment and vaccination for COVID-19 in South Korea. Bio Ethics Policy 2020;4(1):67-96.
  20. Park SH. Pandemic and distributive ethics of health-care resources. Humanit Stud East West 2020(59):261-291. https://doi.org/10.37498/HSEW.2020.08.59.261
  21. Jin L, Huang Y, Liang Y, Zhang Q. Who gets the ventilator? Moral decision making regarding medical resource allocation in a pandemic. J Assoc Consum Res 2021;6(1):159-167. https://doi.org/10.1086/711734
  22. Sharkey K, Gillam L. Should patients with self-inflicted illness receive lower priority in access to healthcare resources? Mapping out the debate. J Med Ethics 2010;36(11):661-665. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.032102
  23. Cappelen AW, Norheim OF. Responsibility in health care: a liberal egalitarian approach. J Med Ethics 2005;31(8):476-480. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.010421
  24. Rogge J, Kittel B. Who shall not be treated: public attitudes on setting health care priorities by person-based criteria in 28 nations. PLoS One 2016;11(6):e0157018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157018
  25. Krutli P, Rosemann T, Tornblom KY, Smieszek T. How to fairly allocate scarce medical resources: ethical argumentation under scrutiny by health professionals and lay people. PLoS One 2016;11(7):e0159086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159086
  26. Gollust SE, Saloner B, Hest R, Blewett LA. US adults' preferences for public allocation of a vaccine for coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(9):e2023020. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.23020
  27. Buckwalter W, Peterson A. Public attitudes toward allocating scarce resources in the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One 2020; 15(11):e0240651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240651
  28. Knight R. Empirical population and public health ethics: a review and critical analysis to advance robust empirical-normative inquiry. Health (London) 2016;20(3):274-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459315583156
  29. Wikler D. Polls and focus groups in bioethics: the case of resource allocation. In: Lolas F, Agar L, editors. Interfaces between bioethics and the empirical social sciences. Santiago: Pan American Health Organization; 2002, p. 91-98.
  30. Johri M, Damschroder LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Kim SY, Ubel PA. Can a moral reasoning exercise improve response quality to surveys of healthcare priorities? J Med Ethics 2009;35(1):57-64. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.024810
  31. Denburg AE, Ungar WJ, Chen S, Hurley J, Abelson J. Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: a population-based randomized stated preference survey. Health Policy 2020;124(6):647-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.04.007
  32. Eyal N, Romain PL, Robertson C. Can rationing through inconvenience be ethical? Hastings Cent Rep 2018;48(1):10-22.
  33. Williams I, Dickinson H, Robinson S. Rationing in health care: the theory and practice of priority setting. Bristol: Bristol University Press; 2012, p. 27-46.
  34. Boschele M. COVID-19 science policy, experts, and publics: why epistemic democracy matters in ecological crises. OMICS 2020; 24(8):479-482. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2020.0083
  35. Furnham A, Thomson K, McClelland A. The allocation of scarce medical resources across medical conditions. Psychol Psychother 2002;75(Pt 2):189-203. https://doi.org/10.1348/147608302169643
  36. Johri M, Damschroder LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. The importance of age in allocating health care resources: does intervention-type matter? Health Econ 2005l;14(7):669-678. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.958
  37. Salloch S, Vollmann J, Schildmann J. Ethics by opinion poll? The functions of attitudes research for normative deliberations in medical ethics. J Med Ethics 2014;40(9):597-602. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-101253