Christina Sutton
CSUCI: Health Issues and Ethics
17 May 2020
Coronavirus Ethical Issues
1
The Coronavirus is wreaking havoc on people’s lives all over the world. It is causing
work and school shutdowns and forcing everyone to stay inside, quarantining with the people
they reside with. The article, Ethical Dilemmas in the Age of Coronavirus: Whose Lives Should
We Save, talks about crowded hospitals with many patients needing the limited resources in these
hospitals all at the same time. The time may come where hospitals have to choose who receives
these resources and who does not; possibly letting one person pass away in the process of saving
another. I will explain the current situation with Coronavirus that the United States and the rest
of the world are currently facing and how the Coronavirus is causing ethical dilemmas. I will
also argue the utilitarian approach against the nonmaleficence approach to decide what is
morally right and wrong.
The total number of coronavirus cases around the world have reached 3,925,815. There
have been 274,488 cases that have resulted in death. The United States has the highest number of
cases compared to any other country with many hospitalizations. as of May 10, 2020, the World
Health Organization states that in the U.S, “there have been 1,245,775 confirmed cases of
COVID-19 with 75,364 deaths” (WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard, 2020).
The article published in the LA Times called, Ethical Dilemmas in the Age of
as written by Jenny Jarvie. She explains that the
Coronavirus: Whose Lives Should We Save w
amount of Coronavirus cases in the United States are multiplying quickly. Ventilators and
hospital beds are in limited supply and many people will be coming to the hospital, all in need of
these life saving items. The article explains that the United States has under 100,000 hospital
beds for intensive care units. The author states that the U.S, “would probably need a total of
2
200,000 in a moderate outbreak” and up to 2.9 million beds if the epidemic becomes as bad as
the Spanish Flu was back in 1918 (Jarvie, 2020).
The Coronavirus has shown to affect people who are older and people with underlying
health issues, more seriously than younger individuals that have had no pre-existing health
conditions (Hua & Shaw, 2020). Jarvie presents an ethical situation that the hospitals might face
in the near future. A specific scenario was, “Three patients: a 16-year-old boy with diabetes, a
25-year-old mother and a 75-year-old grandfather, are crammed into a hospital triage tent and
struggling to breathe. Only one ventilator is left. Who gets it?” (2020). Typically they give out
hospital beds on a first come first serve basis. Now doctors in this scenario may wonder who to
have. Do they save the youngest because the grandfather had a long life already? Do they save
the mother because she is not considered high risk (meaning not elderly and no underlying health
issues) and she has dependents? Or do they save the grandfather because he has the worse chance
of surviving and needs the most help? The article asks questions like these and there is no right
answer. The article also talks about how some medical professionals believe there should be an
age limit as to who they can admit into the hospital. Jarvie states “Some clinicians have
recommended denying critical care to anyone over the age of 85” but she believes many
Americans will see this as age discrimination (2020).
What is the ethical solution to this scenario? One argument is that healthcare
professionals should take a utilitarian approach. Healthcare professionals cannot save everyone
so they will have to choose the ethical solution that benefits the most people. In the specific case
3
example in this article, the ethical solution may be to save the mother with dependents. This
saves the mom who can then still take care of her children.
This scenario is similar to the classic Trolly example. In class we learned about Philippa
Foot’s 1967 Trolly scenario where a trolly has two options: on one track the trolly will hit five
people and on the other track the trolly will hit one person (Dixon, 2020). If someone took a
utilitarian approach here, they would switch tracks to take the one where only one person gets hit
and dies.
A different argument is that health care professionals should choose the principle of
nonmaleficence. This principle is often used when trying to reach a solution with causing the
least amount of harm as possible. It can be argued here that the grandfather in our scenario has
had a long life. The mother might have more of a fighting chance of survival because she is
young and does not have an underlying health condition. That leaves the teenaged boy with
diabetes. He may not have as much of a fighting chance on his own because of his underlying
health condition. If a healthcare provider gave him the ventilator it may be possible that the
young mother and the teenage boy could survive leaving only one death out of three, causing the
least amount of harm. The 16-year-old boy has also experienced the least amount of life out of
everyone. If we are going to let the elderly gentleman die because he has experienced the most
amount of life, is it then right to let the mom in her twenties live while we deny the 16-year-old?
Is the principle of nonmaleficence, doing the least amount of harm, possible in this
scenario, if a healthcare provider is letting some people die? The modern version of the
Hippocratic Oath states that, “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within
4
my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and
awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God” (Tyson, 2001). It is the power of
the healthcare professional to decide who receives the ventilator. However, if they are doing this
everyday are they then “playing God”? This also begs the question, is letting someone die,
killing them? The article, The Ethics of Killing and Letting Die: Active and Passive Euthanasia
from the Journal of Medicine argues the exact scenario we are talking about. The author states,
“Killing is not in all significant respects the same as letting die. For example, the absence of a
ventilator kills no one” (Mclachlan, 2008). Instead this article argues that “the presence of a
ventilator might, in some instances, serve to counteract a cause of death” but the sickness is the
cause of death, not the absence of a ventilator (Mclachlan, 2008).
Personally, I find this situation very heartbreaking. I would never want to have to choose
who lives and who dies. I feel that doing that at all is “playing God” which is against the
Hippocratic Oath. Ethics are hard because there is never a definitive answer. If I was forced to
choose, I would use the principle of utilitarianism. I would have to save the mother. She is the
only one that is not at greater risk of dying, out of the three people in the scenario, so I believe
she has the best chance of surviving. When I first started arguing nonmaleficence, I took that
side. I thought that if I saved the 16-year-old then the mother could still have a chance of
surviving. However if they both died because one had diabetes and the other had no ventilator it
would be really sad. I also find it sad that the elderly gentleman isn’t considered at all in
receiving the ventilator.
Utilitarianism and nonmaleficence can be argued to make different claims about who
someone should save in an ethical dilemma. I think it is a hard decision and it is important to
5
look at these scenarios from every angle. Health care workers who have to make these decisions
everyday have their work cut out for them. I hope that the United States is able to receive more
funds for more ventilators and hospital beds and equipment soon.
6
References
Dixon, L. (2020, February). Principles and Theories in Bioethics. Camarillo.
Hua, & Rajib Shaw. (2020). Coronavirus (COVID-19) “Infodemic” and Emerging Issues
through a Data Lens: The Case of China. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2309.
Jarvie, J. (2020, March 20). Ethical dilemmas in the age of coronavirus: Whose lives should we
save? Retrieved from
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-19/ethical-dilemmas-in-the-age-of-
coronavirus-whose-lives-should-we-save
Mclachlan, H V. "The Ethics of Killing and Letting Die: Active and Passive Euthanasia." Journal
of Medical
Ethics 34.8 (2008): 636-38. Web.
Tyson, P. (2001, March 27). The Hippocratic Oath Today. Retrieved from
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/hippocratic-oath-today/
WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. (2020, May 10). Retrieved from
https://covid19.who.int/
