Ethical concerns for anesthesiologists during an Ebola threat Preoccupations ethiques des anesthesiologistes pendant une menace d'Ebola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The World Health Organization has proclaimed the current Ebola outbreak as a public health emergency. If an outbreak of Ebola should occur in Canada, anesthesiologists and anesthesia departments may be called upon to respond. The purpose of this review is to highlight and discuss potential ethical concepts that may be relevant to anesthesiologists. Source A thorough literature search was conducted using a variety of MEDLINE sources, and we used Stand on Guard for Thee. Ethical Considerations in Preparedness Planning for Pandemic Influenza, a report by The University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics Pandemic Influenza Working Group, as the framework for our review. Principal findings Two groups of ethical concerns were identified. The first group relates to public health ethics, which analyzes the morality of public health interventions, and the second group relates to medical ethics, particularly to ‘‘the duty to care’’. The Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics is vague in the description of duties of physicians who may respond to high-risk contagious diseases. Conclusions Government, public health authorities, and anesthesia departments need to be prepared to respond to an outbreak of Ebola. Anesthesiologists have a skill that is suited to treat the complications of Ebola virus disease, and in case they are called for duty, anesthesiologists should be aware of the ethical concerns of treating a highly contagious communicable disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".