Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33532122›Full record

ArticleAging and disease2021

Age in the Time of COVID-19: An Ethical Analysis.

Sorin Hostiuc, Ionut Negoi, Oana Maria-Isailă, Ioana Diaconescu, Mihaela Hostiuc, Eduard Drima

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aging and disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sorin Hostiuc1Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Ionut Negoi1Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Oana Maria-Isailă1Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Ioana Diaconescu2National Institute of Legal Medicine, Bucharest, Romania.
Mihaela Hostiuc1Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Eduard Drima4Dunărea de Jos University, Galați, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite using a myriad of methods to combat the spread of COVID-19, the healthcare systems (especially the intensive care units) have been overwhelmed, showing an outpaced capacity of available beds and ventilators. Choosing the right criteria to allocate the scarce ICU seems very challenging, being necessary a rapid, uncomplicated and universally accepted tool for patients' triage regarding access to lifesaving resources; one such criterion, which generates intense debates, is age. Under certain circumstances, it might seem appropriate to choose to treat a young over an old patient. The main advantage of this approach is the potential for long-term survival, implying an equal right to reach an advanced age. Many authors have given moral reasons to support it, mainly based on utilitarian ethics or on distributive justice. However, there are numerous counterarguments to this approach, which we will summarize in this article. We will show that age should never be used as a unique criterion for withholding/not initiating life-saving procedures, even in pandemics or cases in which healthcare resources are extremely scarce. This approach is based on fundamental Codes of Ethics, such as the WMA Code of Ethics or the Oath of Hippocrates and all physicians treating patients should obey them.

Indexed as

ageCOVID-19medical futilitymoralitypandemic

Identifiers

PMID33532122
PMCPMC7801273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.