Ethics Trade-Off Between Hazards Prevention and the Safeguard of Death Dignity During COVID-19

Logar, Silvia; Leese, Maggie

doi:10.1177/0030222820950890

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in the case of the COVID-19 patient, the problem may also include a relevant nursing care, given the increased sanitary regime and HR shortages. There is also an ethical dilemma which orders to consider the right to dignified death and the obligation to prevent the epidemic through the application of dignified, but safe, procedures during the burial of people infected with COVID-19 or suspected of such an infection [15][16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitation of patients’ rights during the COVID-19 pandemics in Poland

Piątkowska¹,

Zimmermann²,

Pilarska³

2021

Eur J Trans Clin Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limitation of patients’ rights during the COVID-19 pandemics in Poland

Piątkowska¹,

Zimmermann²,

Pilarska³

2021

Eur J Trans Clin Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Said challenges were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic as numerous countries, especially in the first months of global spread of the disease, had significantly limited chances to perform autopsies [ 17 ], while ethical dilemmas related to consent collection and overruling of religious beliefs quickly arose [ 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medico-Legal Issues in Cremation: Comparative Analysis of International Legislation

Lorenzo¹,

Donna²,

Busillo³

et al. 2022

Healthcare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cremation has seen a constant increase in popularity all around the world. Because of its extensively destructive nature, however, a series of medico-legal issues arise concerning identification, forensic autopsy, external examination, histological, toxicological and genetic exams to be performed not in the immediacy of death. The aim of this study is to compare the international legislation on cremation, seeking the response of various countries to their medico-legal issues. Several affinities but also some differences were found. Similarities include the need for a certificate by a medical examiner excluding any medico-legal issues and non-natural causes of death and the expression of consent to cremation given by the deceased when still alive otherwise by relatives. Significant differences were found in German law, which provides for a second medical examination prior to cremation and in Italian law providing for the medical examiner to collect biological samples from the body and store them for a minimum of ten years for any future purpose of justice. The Italian approach could give a plausible solution to the medico-legal issues raised by cremation with the imperative premise, however, we need to look deeply into its privacy and consent implications, cost–benefits rate, sample collection and storage protocol.

show abstract

“…Pathological and laboratory issues, including autopsy procedures and cadaver handling, have not yet been well characterized. Several governments imposed severe restrictions concerning the corpse management of subjects who died with/from COVID-19, raising important questions, especially from an ethical perspective [13,14]. These restrictions were imposed without any individualized risk assessment: they were adopted in a prudent way in order to reduce the infectious hazards [15,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do We Really Need Hazard Prevention at the Expense of Safeguarding Death Dignity in COVID-19?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To date, little is known regarding the transmission risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection for subjects involved in handling, transporting, and examining deceased persons with known or suspected COVID-19 positivity at the time of death. This experimental study aims to define if and/or how long SARS-CoV-2 persists with replication capacity in the tissues of individuals who died with/from COVID-19, thereby generating infectious hazards. Sixteen patients who died with/from COVID-19 who underwent autopsy between April 2020 and April 2021 were included in this study. Based on PMI, all samples were subdivided into two groups: ‘short PMI’ group (eight subjects who were autopsied between 12 to 72 h after death); ‘long PMI’ (eight subjects who were autopsied between 24 to 78 days after death). All patients tested positive for RT-PCR at nasopharyngeal swab both before death and on samples collected during post-mortem investigation. Moreover, a lung specimen was collected and frozen at −80 °C in order to perform viral culture. The result was defined based on the cytopathic effect (subjective reading) combined with the positivity of the RT-PCR test (objective reading) in the supernatant. Only in one sample (PMI 12 h), virus vitality was demonstrated. This study, supported by a literature review, suggests that the risk of cadaveric infection in cases of a person who died from/with COVID-19 is extremely low in the first hours after death, becoming null after 12 h after death, confirming the World Health Organization (WHO) assumed in March 2020 and suggesting that the corpse of a subject who died from/with COVID-19 should be generally considered not infectious.

show abstract

Ethics Trade-Off Between Hazards Prevention and the Safeguard of Death Dignity During COVID-19

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

Limitation of patients’ rights during the COVID-19 pandemics in Poland

Limitation of patients’ rights during the COVID-19 pandemics in Poland

Medico-Legal Issues in Cremation: Comparative Analysis of International Legislation

Do We Really Need Hazard Prevention at the Expense of Safeguarding Death Dignity in COVID-19?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About