FROM B IRTH TO DEATH AND B ENCH TO CLINIC THE HASTINGS CENTER BIOETHICS BRIEFING BOOK for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns CHAPTER 19 Influenza Pandemic Alexandra Minna Stern and Howard Markel, “Influenza Pandemic,” in From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns, ed. Mary Crowley (Garrison, NY: The Hastings Center, 2008), 89-92. ©2008, The Hastings Center All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any from or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior written permission from the publisher, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review. We have attempted to provide complete and accurate information regarding the individuals, organizations, and agencies described in this book. However, we assume no liability for errors, omissions, or damages arising from the use of this Briefing Book. influenza pandemic by Alexandra Minna Stern and Howard Markel Framing the Issue HIGHLIGHTS If the United States is confronted with pandemic influenza, communities across the country will decide which nonpharma - n Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) ceutical interventions (NPI), if any, to implement before ade - such as isolation and quarantine, school quate vaccine and antiviral supplies are developed and distrib - closures, and social distancing measures should be considered in the event of an uted. NPI encompass traditional public health strategies of isola - influenza pandemic. tion and quarantine, school closures, and social distancing meas - ures such as gathering bans, the cancellation of public events, n NPI work with the most benefit and least friction when they are voluntary, respect c and restricted transportation. Two critical questions emerge from i and rely on individual autonomy, and avoid a potential pandemic scenario: Can communities apply NPI in a the use of police powers. m manner that maximizes the common good and minimizes nega - e n The Centers for Disease Control and d tive social and economic consequences? What are the ethical n Prevention’s 2007 guidelines on community a implications of NPI, particularly when it comes to balancing indi - p mitigation recommend mandatory meas - vidual liberties with the need to protect the public’s health? ures only for pandemics in which the case a z fatality ratio rises above 1%. n n Transparent application of NPI, with e u Voluntary and Mandatory NPI: The Ethical l accountability and protection of civil liber - f n Distinctions ties, is much more likely if communities i The 1918–1919 influenza pandemic was the most deadly infec - have robust public health systems in place tious calamity in human history. Approximately 40 million indi - before a pandemic strikes. 19 viduals died worldwide, including 550,000 individuals in the n Federal lawmakers and policymakers must United States. During the 1918 pandemic, virtually every city in establish a framework in which individuals the United States and much of the world employed mandatory and communities can act to protect them - selves during a pandemic. and voluntary NPI to mitigate the pandemic, making it especially tantalizing for policymakers to scour the historical record for counsel. If we accept that a 1918-like influenza pandemic would neces - sitate a public health response, what criteria should we use to apply a menu of NPI that is ethical and efficacious? The histori - cal record of past epidemics indicates that NPI work with the most benefit and least friction when they are voluntary, respect and rely on individual autonomy, and avoid the use of police powers. Furthermore, recent research indicates that the timing, duration, and choice of NPI played an important role in a com - munity’s overall pandemic outcome. Alexandra Minna Stern, PhD, Associate Past experiences with pandemic—even those as different as T Director, Center for the History of Medicine, C influenza in 1918 and SARS in 2003—teach us that voluntary NPI A University of Michigan • T [email protected], 734-647-6914 usually meet ethical criteria and often can work to empower indi - N O Howard Markel, MD, PhD, Director, Center viduals and communities to protect the public health. For exam - C for the History of Medicine, University of O ple, studies of the 2003 SARS epidemic in Toronto, Canada, found T Michigan • [email protected], 734-647- that the majority of persons exposed to that virus voluntarily con - S 6914 T R E Nancy Berlinger, PhD, Deputy Director and P Research Scholar, The Hastings Center • Alexandra Minna Stern, PhD, is associate director and Howard Markel, MD, X E [email protected], 845-424- PhD, is director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of 4040, x210 Michigan. INFLueNzA PANDeMIC 89 sented to home quarantine in order to protect the ing such health orders. It was only in the years fol - health of others. They reported “civic duty” as their lowing the civil rights movements of the 1950s and primary motivation for home and work quarantine. 1960s that principles such as patient autonomy and Additionally, a 2006 Harvard School of Public the protection of civil liberties became legal and Health survey found that most Americans, if con - ethical cornerstones of public health programs fronted with pandemic influenza, would make aimed at mitigating infectious disease. It is impor - major changes in their daily lives for up to one tant to remember the context in which mandatory month to comply with recommended voluntary NPI were implemented in 1918—an era character - NPI. It is also striking that in 1918 in Chicago, one ized by medical paternalism and strong state of just a handful of cities that did not order school authority to intervene with legal immunity in the closure, absenteeism rates neared 50% during the lives of ordinary citizens. height of the epidemic. Of their own volition, Even so, the 1918 experience offers many exam - many Americans in cities across the country ples of the application of mandatory NPI that back - sequestered themselves in their homes. Given that fired, potentially inciting undue social conflict that the 1918 pandemic coincided with a time of war worsened disease transmission and, according to and heightened patriotism, Americans were partic - today’s standards, would fall far short of ethical ularly inclined to heed governmental mandates. standards. In many cities, including San Francisco When the pandemic hit the United States in and Denver, local officials passed mask ordinances September 1918, the term “slacker,” originally requiring individuals to wear layered-gauze masks applied to those who refused to support the war in public, despite having no clear scientific proof of effort, was quickly applied to people who protested benefit, and authorizing the police to fine or arrest public health edicts. those who did not comply. These mandatory face Yet even as public health officials can be heart - mask laws proved to be bad policy. Many people ened by evidence of ethically sound and voluntary wore the masks incorrectly, and some engaged in NPI cooperation, as the severity of a pandemic subterfuge to avoid wearing them. For others, the increases, so too will the pressure on government masks provided a false sense of security from the to enact mandatory NPI in order to mitigate trans - pandemic. There were even several instances mission and reduce the case fatality rate. In the where those who issued the mask order—including Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2007 both San Francisco’s mayor and health commis - guidelines on community mitigation, mandatory sioner—were seen at public events with the masks measures are only recommended for pandemics dangling across their necks and not properly fas - whose case fatality ratio rises above one percent, tened. Some citizens formed antimask leagues and which would rate them as category 4 or 5 in the placarded the streets with antimask manifestos. Pandemic Severity Index (the 1918 flu pandemic There also was pushback to mandatory school clo - was a category 5). Based on the 2006 U.S. popula - sures and social distancing measures in many tion, this means that the projected deaths from American cities during the fall of 1918, especially pandemic influenza would have to surpass one mil - when these NPI were deactivated only to be reacti - lion before mandatory measures would be recom - vated days or weeks later when citizens felt that mended. Given such projections and the political daily life was returning to some semblance of nor - and social imperatives to act in the event of a cate - mality. In the worst instances, mandatory NPI gory 5 influenza pandemic, can mandatory NPI be pushback put society at greater risk of infection, applied in an ethical and transparent manner that and the haphazard application of NPI eroded the inspires compliance? public trust. The Challenges of Mandatory NPI Setting Ethical Pandemic Policy Broadly speaking, humans have organized Mandatory NPI can be implemented in an ethi - mandatory NPI, such as quarantine and isolation, cal and efficacious manner if we hold certain ethi - to mitigate the spread of contagion since antiquity. cal principles as ideals, with the strong caveat that Until fairly recently, the needs, rights or even mandatory NPI should only be considered in the health of the afflicted (and quarantined) were event of a category 4 or 5 pandemic. rarely a primary concern among those administer - n To begin, mandatory NPI must rest on a foun - 90 THe HASTINGS CeNTer bIoeTHICS brIeFING book W HY N ONPHARMACEUTICAL I NTERVENTIONS (NPI) S HOULD B E C ONSIDERED IN A P ANDEMIC Mandatory NPI was widely used across the united States in can carry serious problems, in this case by violating the harm the 1918 influenza pandemic. In several instances, removed principle (which maintains that individual autonomy can be cur - communities such as islands (including American Samoa) took tailed rightfully in order to prevent harm and injury to others) advantage of their geographical isolation to restrict access and and disregarding escalating social risk.