• Kenneth V Iserson.
• International Federation for Emergency Medicine and Department of Emergency Medicine, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
• J Emerg Med. 2018 Aug 1; 55 (2): 288293288-293.

BackgroundWidespread epidemics, pandemics, and other risk-prone disasters occur with disturbing regularity. When such events occur, how should, and will, clinicians respond? The moral backbone of medical professionals-a duty to put the needs of patients first-may be sorely tested.DiscussionIt is incumbent on health care professionals to ask what we must do and what we should do if a dangerous health care situation threatens both ourselves and our community. Despite numerous medical ethical codes, nothing-either morally or legally-requires a response to risk-prone situations from civilian clinicians; it remains a personal decision. The most important questions are: What will encourage us to respond to these situations? And will we respond? These questions are necessary, not only for physicians and other direct health care providers, but also for vital health care system support personnel. Those who provide care in the face of perceived risk demonstrate heroic bravery, but the choice to do so has varied throughout history. To improve individual response rates, disaster planners and managers must communicate the risks clearly to all members of the health care system and help mitigate their risks by providing them with as much support and security as possible.ConclusionsThe decision to remain in or to leave a risky health care situation will ultimately depend on the provider's own risk assessment and value system. If history is any guide, we can rest assured that most clinicians will choose to stay, following the heroic example established through the centuries and continuing today.Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

20 keywords...

hide…