Coronavirus Update: Ethics Considerations, Guidance and Resources.
It appears you're using Mirosoft Internet Explorer or an early version of Edge. To fully enjoy this website — and pretty much every modern website in existence — we suggest you upgrade to Chrome or Firefox. You'll be happier.
Sessions will be held on Tuesdays beginning Sept. 28th 2021 from 12:00pm-1:15pm. Registration is now open for all sessions.
Beginning September 28th, join the Vermont Ethics Network and friends to examine ethically complex cases and expand your knowledge of bioethics. These programs are free of charge and registration pages will be coming soon for each presentation. Mark your calendars today!
As the Covid-19 pandemic continues to strain health systems’ capacity to provide adequate care for critically ill patients, should patients’ vaccination status be considered in making triage decisions?
This question sparked debate recently after the leak of an internal memo of the North Texas Mass Critical Care Guideline Task Force, which provides triage guidelines for regional hospitals, that proposed using patients’ Covid-19 vaccination status as a factor to assign intensive care beds. The task force has since clarified that it was not intended as policy but for internal discussion between the task force and physician representatives of the regional hospitals.
September 1, 2021 10 -11 am and 6-7 pm Brattleboro Area Hospice’s Taking Steps Brattleboro (TSB) program will host two zoom Advance Care Planning (ACP)/Advance Directive Question and Answer Information sessions next Wednesday, September 1, 2021. If you are interested in attending, please contact Don Freeman by email: or calling 802.257.0775 ext 101 and leave your contact information so you can receive the emailed zoom invitation and/or telephone call-in number. Be sure to specify which session you plan to attend.
Last week, Texas health care policymakers discussed taking vaccination status into account for Covid triage. It’s a larger conversation ethicists are bracing for.
A Hastings Conversations Webinar: The Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approval of a new Alzheimer’s drug has created a firestorm of praise and outrage. Dissenters include the FDA’s own advisory committee members, who in November 2020 unanimously recommended against approving the drug, Aduhelm, because it showed no convincing evidence of efficacy, leading three committee members to resign in protest after the approval. Numerous scientists, clinicians, bioethicists, and policymakers have serious concerns about the drug’s efficacy, its side effects, and possible negative social, scientific and financial consequences of its approval. The Alzheimer’s Association hailed it as “a new era in Alzheimer’s treatment and research.”
The government and many residents of the state of Texas like to brag about their love of personal freedom and individual choice. That is why it is so strange and morally repugnant that the state has turned for guidance on how to manage reproductive decisions to the Chinese Communist Party of the Mao Zedong era. (A Bioethics Forum Essay by Arthur Caplan, PhD)
The Covid-19 pandemic has stretched health care resources to the breaking point, particularly the mechanical and human resources essential to intensive care. Although Covid-19 continues to inflict utter havoc and compound pre-existing poverty, inequality, and disparities in much of the world, in many areas of the United States we find ourselves slowly recovering from a relatively unprecedented resource nadir, cautiously re-approaching a tentative sense of normalcy with respect to health care operations.
Aducanumab has just been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to slow the progress of Alzheimer’s disease. It is likely that many people who are candidates for the drug will no longer be competent to make their own health care decisions, and will be relying heavily on others to make the decision with them or for them.
June 7, 2021, was a bad day for science. That was the day the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, even though a committee of its own selected experts recommended strongly against approval.