Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 25;23(1):33.
doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00773-0.

Which features of patients are morally relevant in ventilator triage? A survey of the UK public

Lok Chan  1 , Jana Schaich Borg  2 , Vincent Conitzer  3   4   5   6   7 , Dominic Wilkinson  8   9   10 , Julian Savulescu  8   9 , Hazem Zohny  8 , Walter Sinnott-Armstrong  5   11
Affiliations

Which features of patients are morally relevant in ventilator triage? A survey of the UK public

Lok Chan et al. BMC Med Ethics. .

Abstract

Background: In the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, many health systems, including those in the UK, developed triage guidelines to manage severe shortages of ventilators. At present, there is an insufficient understanding of how the public views these guidelines, and little evidence on which features of a patient the public believe should and should not be considered in ventilator triage.

Methods: Two surveys were conducted with representative UK samples. In the first survey, 525 participants were asked in an open-ended format to provide features they thought should and should not be considered in allocating ventilators for COVID-19 patients when not enough ventilators are available. In the second survey, 505 participants were presented with 30 features identified from the first study, and were asked if these features should count in favour of a patient with the feature getting a ventilator, count against the patient, or neither. Statistical tests were conducted to determine if a feature was generally considered by participants as morally relevant and whether its mean was non-neutral.

Results: In Survey 1, the features of a patient most frequently cited as being morally relevant to determining who would receive access to ventilators were age, general health, prospect of recovery, having dependents, and the severity of COVID symptoms. The features most frequently cited as being morally irrelevant to determining who would receive access to ventilators are race, gender, economic status, religion, social status, age, sexual orientation, and career. In Survey 2, the top three features that participants thought should count in favour of receiving a ventilator were pregnancy, having a chance of dying soon, and having waited for a long time. The top three features that participants thought should count against a patient receiving a ventilator were having committed violent crimes in the past, having unnecessarily engaged in activities with a high risk of COVID-19 infection, and a low chance of survival.

Conclusions: The public generally agreed with existing UK guidelines that allocate ventilators according to medical benefits and that aim to avoid discrimination based on demographic features such as race and gender. However, many participants expressed potentially non-utilitarian concerns, such as inclining to deprioritise ventilator allocation to those who had a criminal history or who contracted the virus by needlessly engaging in high-risk activities.

Keywords: COVID-19; Medical ethics; Rationing; Scarce resources; Triage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Features that participants believe should be considered in ventilator allocation decisions, organized by the percentage of participants who mentioned the feature (features mentioned by < 1% of participants not listed)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Features that participants believe should not be considered in ventilator allocation decisions, organized by the percentage of participants who mentioned the feature (features mentioned by < 1% of participants not listed)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Distribution of response among participants, ordered by the average of all responses from highest to lowest
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Cummings MJ, Baldwin MR, Abrams D, et al. Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395:1763–1770. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31189-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jöbges S, Vinay R, Luyckx VA, et al. Recommendations on COVID-19 triage: international comparison and ethical analysis. Bioethics. 2020;34:948–959. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12805. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Antommaria AHM, Gibb TS, McGuire AL, et al. Ventilator triage policies during the COVID-19 pandemic at US Hospitals associated with members of the association of bioethics program directors. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:188–194. doi: 10.7326/M20-1738. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wilkinson D, Zohny H, Kappes A, et al. Which factors should be included in triage? An online survey of the attitudes of the UK general public to pandemic triage dilemmas. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e045593. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045593. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maves RC, Downar J, Dichter JR, Hick JL, Devereaux A, Geiling JA, Kissoon N, Hupert N, Niven AS, King MA, Rubinson LL, Hanfling D, Hodge JG, Jr, Marshall MF, Fischkoff K, Evans LE, Tonelli MR, Wax RS, Seda G, Parrish JS, Truog RD, Sprung CL, Christian MD. ACCP task force for mass critical care. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.063. - DOI - PMC - PubMed