Who should be tested in a pandemic? Ethical considerations.
Covid-19
Direct-to-consumer tests
Obligatory testing
Pandemic
Priority-setting
Testing
Unauthorized immigrants
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 06 2021
22 06 2021
Historique:
received:
08
02
2021
accepted:
08
06
2021
entrez:
23
6
2021
pubmed:
24
6
2021
medline:
29
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the initial phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, difficult decisions had to be made on the allocation of testing resources. Similar situations can arise in future pandemics. Therefore, careful consideration of who should be tested is an important part of pandemic preparedness. We focus on four ethical aspects of that problem: how to prioritize scarce testing resources, the regulation of commercial direct-to-consumer test services, testing of unauthorized immigrants, and obligatory testing. The distribution of scarce resources for testing: We emphasize the use of needs-based criteria, but also acknowledge the importance of choosing a testing strategy that contributes efficiently to stopping the overall spread of the disease. Commercial direct-to-consumer test services: Except in cases of acute scarcity, such services will in practice have to be allowed. We propose that they should be subject to regulation that ensures test quality and adequate information to users. Testing of unauthorized immigrants, their children and other people with unclear legal status: Like everyone else, these individuals may be in need of testing, and it is in society's interest to reach them with testing in order to stop the spread of the disease. A society that offers comprehensive medical services to unauthorized immigrants is in a much better position to reach them in a pandemic than a society that previously excluded them from healthcare. Obligatory testing: While there are often strong reasons for universal testing in residential areas or on workplaces, there are in most cases better ways to achieve testing coverage than to make testing mandatory. In summary, we propose (1) decision-making primarily based on needs-based criteria, (2) strict regulation but not prohibition of direct-to-consumer test services, (3) test services offered to unauthorized immigrants, preferably as part of comprehensive medical services, and (4) broad outreach of testing services whenever possible, but in general not obligatory testing.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the initial phase of the Covid-19 pandemic, difficult decisions had to be made on the allocation of testing resources. Similar situations can arise in future pandemics. Therefore, careful consideration of who should be tested is an important part of pandemic preparedness. We focus on four ethical aspects of that problem: how to prioritize scarce testing resources, the regulation of commercial direct-to-consumer test services, testing of unauthorized immigrants, and obligatory testing.
MAIN TEXT
The distribution of scarce resources for testing: We emphasize the use of needs-based criteria, but also acknowledge the importance of choosing a testing strategy that contributes efficiently to stopping the overall spread of the disease. Commercial direct-to-consumer test services: Except in cases of acute scarcity, such services will in practice have to be allowed. We propose that they should be subject to regulation that ensures test quality and adequate information to users. Testing of unauthorized immigrants, their children and other people with unclear legal status: Like everyone else, these individuals may be in need of testing, and it is in society's interest to reach them with testing in order to stop the spread of the disease. A society that offers comprehensive medical services to unauthorized immigrants is in a much better position to reach them in a pandemic than a society that previously excluded them from healthcare. Obligatory testing: While there are often strong reasons for universal testing in residential areas or on workplaces, there are in most cases better ways to achieve testing coverage than to make testing mandatory.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we propose (1) decision-making primarily based on needs-based criteria, (2) strict regulation but not prohibition of direct-to-consumer test services, (3) test services offered to unauthorized immigrants, preferably as part of comprehensive medical services, and (4) broad outreach of testing services whenever possible, but in general not obligatory testing.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34158041
doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00640-4
pii: 10.1186/s12910-021-00640-4
pmc: PMC8218570
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
76Références
Viruses. 2020 Dec 29;13(1):
pubmed: 33383888
BMC Public Health. 2016 May 23;16:426
pubmed: 27216405
Soc Sci Med. 2011 Aug;73(4):586-594
pubmed: 21778008
Virtual Mentor. 2008 Apr 01;10(4):235-41
pubmed: 23206915
N Engl J Med. 1999 Feb 4;340(5):385-6
pubmed: 9929533
Vaccine. 2008 Oct 16;26(44):5562-6
pubmed: 18722495
J Infect. 2011 Jul;63(1):60-5
pubmed: 21621848
JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2241-2242
pubmed: 32374357
J Med Ethics. 2020 Oct;46(10):652-659
pubmed: 32817362
Am J Bioeth. 2009;9(6-7):23-5
pubmed: 19998107
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Oct 21;11(10):11004-14
pubmed: 25337945
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2012 Feb;37(1):131-40
pubmed: 22003100
Nat Med. 2021 Apr;27(4):591-600
pubmed: 33846611
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Mar 16;118(11):
pubmed: 33632802
Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 4;8(1):5
pubmed: 30609940
Crit Care Explor. 2021 Jan 22;3(1):e0326
pubmed: 33521645
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020 Aug;74(8):620-623
pubmed: 32385126
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2017 Oct 1;21(10):1075-1085
pubmed: 28911349
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 May 14;21(1):40
pubmed: 32408869
JAMA. 1989 Jun 16;261(23):3415-8
pubmed: 2635877
Dev World Bioeth. 2004 May;4(1):1-16
pubmed: 15086371
BMJ. 2014 Jan 21;348:g390
pubmed: 24449468
JAMA. 2020 May 26;323(20):2052-2059
pubmed: 32320003
Metabolism. 2020 Jul;108:154262
pubmed: 32422233
N Engl J Med. 1999 Feb 4;340(5):359-66
pubmed: 9929527
J Med Virol. 2020 Jul;92(7):903-908
pubmed: 32219885
Science. 2020 Sep 11;369(6509):1309-1312
pubmed: 32883884
Crim Law Philos. 2012;6(1):47-63
pubmed: 32215112
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Mar 2;19(1):16
pubmed: 29499693
Lancet. 2020 May 23;395(10237):1595-1598
pubmed: 32380041
Lancet. 2020 Apr 18;395(10232):1250-1251
pubmed: 32224298
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 15;9(10):e108261
pubmed: 25330079
AIDS Behav. 2014 Jul;18 Suppl 4:S438-44
pubmed: 24974124
JAMA. 2020 Nov 24;324(20):2015-2016
pubmed: 33156334
West J Med. 1984 Oct;141(4):538-41
pubmed: 6438916
Malar J. 2017 May 15;16(1):196
pubmed: 28506275
BMJ. 2013 Mar 21;346:f1907
pubmed: 23518383
Lancet. 2020 Aug 22;396(10250):519-521
pubmed: 32730743
N Engl J Med. 2009 May 7;360(19):1981-8
pubmed: 19420367
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Sep;18(9):e259-e271
pubmed: 29778396
J Rural Health. 2020 Jun;36(3):433-445
pubmed: 32543763
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Jul;8(7):e901-e908
pubmed: 32405459
Lancet. 2009 Jan 31;373(9661):423-31
pubmed: 19186274
Nature. 2020 May;581(7809):379-381
pubmed: 32439992
Health Care Anal. 2015 Mar;23(1):73-87
pubmed: 23479248
Am J Crim Justice. 2020 Jul 7;:1-21
pubmed: 32837171
Pers Individ Dif. 2020 Nov 1;166:110201
pubmed: 32565592
Genome Med. 2009 Feb 02;1(2):17
pubmed: 19341488
Am J Transplant. 2020 Sep;20(9):2612-2617
pubmed: 32862556