Thread: Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers

Who should MDs let die in a pandemic? Report offers answers
By LINDSEY TANNER
AP Medical Writer

Posted: Today at 12:14 a.m.

CHICAGO — Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won't get it in a flu pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding who to let die.

Now, an influential group of physicians has drafted a grimly specific list of recommendations for which patients wouldn't be treated. They include the very elderly, seriously hurt trauma victims, severely burned patients and those with severe dementia.

The suggested list was compiled by a task force whose members come from prestigious universities, medical groups, the military and government agencies. They include the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The proposed guidelines are designed to be a blueprint for hospitals "so that everybody will be thinking in the same way" when pandemic flu or another widespread health care disaster hits, said Dr. Asha Devereaux. She is a critical care specialist in San Diego and lead writer of the task force report.

The idea is to try to make sure that scarce resources - including ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses - are used in a uniform, objective way, task force members said.

Their recommendations appear in a report appearing Monday in the May edition of Chest, the medical journal of the American College of Chest Physicians.

"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 states.

To prepare, hospitals should designate a triage team with the Godlike task of deciding who will and who won't get lifesaving care, the task force wrote. Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include:

-People older than 85.

-Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.

-Severely burned patients older than 60.

-Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.

-Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.

Dr. Kevin Yeskey, director of the preparedness and emergency operations office at the Department of Health and Human Services, was on the task force. He said the report would be among many the agency reviews as part of preparedness efforts.

Public health law expert Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University called the report an important initiative but also "a political minefield and a legal minefield."

The recommendations would probably violate federal laws against age discrimination and disability discrimination, said Gostin, who was not on the task force.

If followed to a tee, such rules could exclude care for the poorest, most disadvantaged citizens who suffer disproportionately from chronic disease and disability, he said. While health care rationing will be necessary in a mass disaster, "there are some real ethical concerns here."

James Bentley, a senior vice president at American Hospital Association, said the report will give guidance to hospitals in shaping their own preparedness plans even if they don't follow all the suggestions.

He said the proposals resemble a battlefield approach in which limited health care resources are reserved for those most likely to survive.

Bentley said it's not the first time this type of approach has been recommended for a catastrophic pandemic, but that "this is the most detailed one I have seen from a professional group."

While the notion of rationing health care is unpleasant, the report could help the public understand that it will be necessary, Bentley said.

Devereaux said compiling the list "was emotionally difficult for everyone."

That's partly because members believe it's just a matter of time before such a health care disaster hits, she said.

"You never know," Devereaux said. "SARS took a lot of folks by surprise. We didn't even know it existed."

---

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.wral.com/news/science/story/2832623/

Since whites tend to be older in the US, with the baby boom of the 50's and 60's contributing, this sounds like it could possibly be racist. Older people tend to have more health problems too.

HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DETERMINE WHO IS 85 IF THEY HAVE BEEN IN A CAR WRECK OR BEEN SHOT? HOW ARE THEY GOING TO KNOW IF THEY HAVE CHRONIC DISEASE? THESE ARE GOING TO BE EMERGENCY CASES COMING INTO THE EMERGENCY ROOM NO?

IF SOMEONE "LOOKS" 85 ARE THEY GOING TO LET THEM DIE? WHAT IF THEY ARE ONLY 80? THIS SEEMS LIKE A VERY SHAKY PLAN....AND OMG....LAWSUIT CITY. WHAT IF SOMEONE IS UNDERGOING CANCER TREATMENT? HOW CAN THEY KNOW THEY WILL NOT SURVIVE?

I SUGGEST THEY VAMP UP THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM SO IT IS CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE POPULATION. OH AND DEPORTING ALL ILLEGALS WOULD BE ONE STEP IN REDUCING THE LOAD IN AN EMERGENCY.

ALSO IF THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS SO SUB STANDARD THAT THEY CANT HANDLE AN EMERGENCY, THEN ALL IMMIGRATION, LEGAL OR ILLEGAL, SHOULD BE PUT ON HOLD UNTIL OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM CAN HANDLE IT. AND NO MORE WORK VISAS EITHER. WE CANT HANDLE IT.

IF THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT LETTING PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE THEY CANT HANDLE THEM, THEN REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE IN THE COUNTRY WOULD BE A HUGE STEP IN BRINGING THE SITUATION UNDER CONTROL.

AND WITHOUT IMMIGRATION THERE ARE LESS CHANCES OF HAVING DISEASES BROUGHT INTO THE COUNTRY.