Welcome to Health Care POV | sign in | join
ADVANCE Perspective: Nurses

Survival of the Fittest?

Published May 7, 2008 9:38 AM by Abigail Scott

A task force of representatives from medical groups, universities, the military and government agencies is basically recommending who lives and who dies after a major disaster like pandemic flu or terrorist attack.

In essence, the group recommends the very elderly, severely injured trauma patients, severely burned older patients and people with advanced dementia not receive treatment in the event of a mass-casualty situation.

The goal is to make sure resources such as ventilators, medicine -- and of course staff -- are used fairly. All the recommendations appear in an article in the May edition of Chest and are discussed on the American College of Chest Physicians Web site.

"If a mass casualty critical care event were to occur tomorrow, many people with clinical conditions that are survivable under usual health care system conditions may have to forgo life-sustaining interventions owing to deficiencies in supply or staffing," the report stated.

The task force recommends hospitals designate triage teams who will decide which patients will and won't get lifesaving care.

Specific recommendations regarding people who should not receive care are:

  • people older than 85.
  • severe trauma, i.e. critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.
  • severe burns in patients older than 60.
  • people with severe mental impairment, i.e. advanced Alzheimer's disease.
  • people with severe chronic disease, i.e. advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.

Some argue the recommendations smack of age and disability discrimination and could create a "political and legal minefield." The American Hospital Association says the recommendations are just that, recommendations, designed to help hospitals develop their own preparedness plans even if they don't follow all the suggestions.

4 comments

Don't get me wrong, I understand these recommendations completely--and concur with them. I was only citing what others have said or may say about them. I may have added a little too much drama to my post...

Abbey June 10, 2008 1:38 PM

  In response to the article in Chest that Abbey Scott commented on related to determining who lives and who dies in an pandemic or terrorist attack.

This policy has been the axiom for major disasters for many years. I think it's been around since at least World War II

and works well. It is:

"The greatest good for the greatest number with the least amount of personnel and supplies."

If you think about it, it's not discrimination- it's good decision making. If you spend too much time on a critically ill victim, you may lose the patients, and perhaps five other less injured victims who didn't receive treatment first.

kay, Publishing - RN, Merion Publications June 10, 2008 1:15 PM
King of Prussia PA

State of Wisconsin is also trying to come up with ethics for a pandemic.  Right now the age group to be treated would be 14-45.  A whole lot of people would be feeling the pinch with that age span, but it is what it is.  The rest of us would be told to stay home and hope for the best.  Perhaps as broken as the healthcare system is right now, a pandemic might not be a bad thing?  Ranchers thin the herd by selling part of it rather than let animals starve .  Gardeners thin out plants so that the ones left are stronger.  Those people left after a pandemic would be stronger, have the most immunity, and probably the least amount of hereditary diseases to pass on to future generations.  I'm not advocating a pandemic be encouraged, but there could be some benefits long term.

Connie, ED - RN, WFHC-Franklin June 5, 2008 7:15 AM
Milwaukee WI

Dear Abbey,

I know that these recommendations must sound absolutely horrific to you and many in the health care field, but for anyone who has ever had to triage it's reality.  

I dread the day I have to face a disaster situation.  No one wants to make decisions about who can receive care and who can not.  It sounds inhumane, but during a disaster nothing is humane.

They are not talking about every day,normal decisions.  This is about something few of us can even imagine.  If I ever have to face disaster, it may feel good to have some guidelines to help back me up.

Sincerely,

Lorettajo

Lorettajo Kapinos May 18, 2008 9:30 PM
Springfield MA

leave a comment



To prevent comment spam, please type the code you see below into the code field before submitting your comment. If you cannot read the numbers in the image, reload the page to generate a new one.

Captcha
Enter the security code below: