How to get propecia online

By Robert Preidt HealthDay Reporter FRIDAY, Aug how to get propecia online. 28, 2020 (HealthDay News) -- Breastfeeding mothers are unlikely to transmit the new hair loss to their babies via their milk, researchers say. No cases of an infant contracting hair loss treatment from breast milk have been documented, but questions about the potential risk remain.

Researchers examined 64 samples of breast milk collected from 18 women across the United States who were infected with the new hair loss how to get propecia online (hair loss) that causes hair loss treatment. One sample tested positive for hair loss RNA, but follow-up tests showed that the propecia couldn't replicate and therefore, couldn't infect the breastfed infant, according to the study recently published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Detection of viral RNA does not equate to .

It has to grow and multiply in order to be infectious and we did not find that in any of our samples," said study author Christina Chambers, a how to get propecia online professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of the Mommy's Milk Human Milk Research Biorepository. "Our findings suggest breast milk itself is not likely a source of for the infant," Chambers said in a UCSD news release.

To prevent transmission of the propecia while breastfeeding, wearing a mask, hand-washing and sterilizing pumping equipment after each use are recommended. "We hope our results and future studies will give women the reassurance needed for them to breastfeed. Human milk provides invaluable benefits to mom and baby," said co-author Dr.

Grace Aldrovandi, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at UCLA Mattel Children's Hospital in Los Angeles. WebMD News from HealthDay Sources SOURCE. University of California, San Diego, news release, Aug.

19, 2020 Copyright © 2013-2020 HealthDay. All rights reserved..

Propecia reviews

NONE
Propecia
Proscar
Finast
Finpecia
Buy with visa
You need consultation
You need consultation
You need consultation
No
Daily dosage
17h
10h
1h
22h
Where can you buy
Yes
You need consultation
You need consultation
Ask your Doctor
Best way to use
49
43
36
62
Buy with discover card
Ask your Doctor
5mg
Ask your Doctor
Consultation

You may be hearing about how virtual care, propecia reviews often described as telehealth or telemedicine, is beneficial during hair loss treatment and how health systems can propecia cause infertility are offering virtual access like never before. There’s a reason for that, too. For the past few weeks I’ve seen Facebook posts daily from former nursing colleagues in metro Detroit, one of the hardest hit areas in the country, as they provide front-line care to patients with hair loss treatment. It makes me propecia reviews very proud to call these nurses my friends.

As a former emergency department nurse, I recall the feeling of satisfaction knowing that I’ve helped someone on the worst day of their life. One of the best parts of being a nurse is knowing you matter to the only person in health care that truly matters. The patient propecia reviews. Several years ago I made the difficult decision to no longer perform bedside nursing and become a nurse administrator.

The biggest loss from my transition is the feeling that what I do matters to the patient. hair loss treatment has forced a lot of us to rethink the role we play in health care and what the real priority propecia reviews should be. Things that were top priorities three months ago have been rightfully cast aside to either care for patients in a propecia or prepare for the unknown future of, “When is our turn?. € For me, hair loss treatment has reignited the feeling that what I do matters as virtual care has become a powerful tool on the forefront of care during this crisis.

It has also shown that many of the propecia reviews powerful rules and regulations that limit virtual care are not needed and should be discarded permanently. When I became the director of virtual care at our organization in 2015 I knew nothing about telehealth. Sure, I had seen a stroke robot in some Emergency Departments, and I had some friends that told me their insurance company lets them FaceTime a doctor for free (spoiler alert. It’s not propecia reviews FaceTime).

I was tech-savvy from a consumer perspective and a tech novice from an IT perspective. Nevertheless, my team and I spent the next few years learning as we built one of the higher volume virtual care networks in the state of Michigan. We discovered a lot of barriers that keep virtual care from actually making the lives of patients and providers propecia reviews better and we also became experts in working around those barriers. But, there were two obstacles that we could not overcome.

Government regulation and insurance provider willingness to cover virtual visits. These two barriers effectively cripple most legitimate attempts to provide value-added propecia reviews direct-to-consumer virtual care, which I define as using virtual care technologies to provide care outside of our brick-and-mortar facilities, most commonly in the patient home. The need to social distance, cancel appointments, close provider offices, keep from overloading emergency departments and urgent cares and shelter in place created instant demand for direct-to-consumer virtual care. In all honesty, I’ve always considered direct-to-consumer virtual care to be the flashy, must-have holiday gift of the year that organizations are convinced will be the way of the future.

If a health system wants to provide on-demand access to patients for propecia reviews low-complexity acute conditions, they will easily find plenty of vendors that will sell them their app and their doctors and put the health system’s logo on it. What a health system will struggle with is to find is enough patient demand to cover the high cost. Remember my friends from earlier that told me about the app their insurance gave them?. Nearly all of them followed that up by telling me they’ve never actually used propecia reviews it.

I am fortunate that I work for an organization that understands this and instead focuses on how can we provide care that our patients actually want and need from the doctors they want to see. Ironically, this fiscal year we had a corporate top priority around direct-to-consumer virtual care. We wanted to expand what propecia reviews we thought were some successful pilots and perform 500 direct-to-consumer visits. This year has been one of the hardest of my leadership career because, frankly, up until a month ago I was about to fail on this top priority.

With only four months left, we were only about halfway there. The biggest problem we ran into was that every great idea a physician brought to me was instantly dead in propecia reviews the water because practically no insurance company would pay for it. There are (prior to hair loss treatment) a plethora of rules around virtual care billing but the simplest way to summarize it is that most virtual care will only be paid if it happens in a rural location and inside of a health care facility. It is extremely limited what will be paid for in the patient home and most of it is so specific that the average patient isn’t eligible to get any in-home virtual care.

Therefore, most good propecia reviews medical uses for direct-to-consumer care would be asking the patient to pay cash or the physician to forgo reimbursement for a visit that would be covered if it happened in office. Add to that the massive capital and operating expenses it takes to build a virtual care network and you can see why these programs don’t exist. A month ago I was skeptical we’d have a robust direct-to-consumer program any time soon and then hair loss treatment hit. When hair loss treatment started to spread rapidly in the United States, regulations and reimbursement rules were being propecia reviews stripped daily.

The first change that had major impact is when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that they would temporarily begin reimbursing for virtual visits conducted in the patient’s home for hair loss treatment and non-hair loss treatment related visits. We were already frantically designing a virtual program to handle the wave of hair loss treatment screening visits that were overloading our emergency departments and urgent cares. We were having plenty of discussions around reimbursement for this clinic propecia reviews. Do we attempt to bill insurances knowing they will likely deny, do we do a cash clinic model or do we do this as a community benefit and eat the cost?.

The CMS waiver gave us hope that we would be compensated for diverting patients away from reimbursed visits to a virtual visit that is more convenient for the patient and aligns with the concept of social distancing. Realistically we don’t know if we propecia reviews will be paid for any of this. We are holding all of the bills for at least 90 days while the industry sorts out the rules. I was excited by the reimbursement announcement because I knew we had eliminated one of the biggest direct-to-consumer virtual care barriers.

However, I was propecia reviews quickly brought back to reality when I was reminded that HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) still existed. I had this crazy idea that during a propecia we should make it as easy as possible for people to receive virtual care and that the best way to do that was to meet the patient on the device they are most comfortable with and the application (FaceTime, Facebook, Skype, etc.) that they use every day. The problem is nearly every app the consumer uses on a daily basis is banned by HIPAA because “it’s not secure.” I’m not quite sure what a hacker stands to gain by listening into to my doctor and me talk about how my kids yet again gave me strep throat but apparently the concern is great enough to stifle the entire industry. Sure, not every health care discussion is propecia reviews as low-key as strep throat and a patient may want to protect certain topics from being discussed over a “non-secure” app but why not let the patient decide through informed consent?.

Regulators could also abandon this all-or-nothing approach and lighten regulations surrounding specific health conditions. The idea that regulations change based article on medical situation is not new. For example, in my home state of Michigan, adolescents are essentially considered propecia reviews emancipated if it involves sexual health, mental health or substance abuse. Never mind that this same information is freely given over the phone by every office around the country daily without issue, but I digress.

While my job is to innovate new pathways for care, our lawyer’s job is to protect the organization and he, along with IT security, rightfully shot down my consumer applications idea. A few days later I legitimately propecia reviews screamed out loud in joy when the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would use discretion on enforcing HIPAA compliance rules and specifically allowed for use of consumer applications. The elimination of billing restrictions and HIPAA regulations changed what is possible for health care organizations to offer virtually. Unfortunately both changes are listed as temporary and will likely be removed when the propecia ends.

Six days after the HIPAA changes were announced, we launched a centralized virtual clinic for any propecia reviews patient that wanted a direct-to-consumer video visit to be screened by a provider for hair loss treatment. It allows patients to call in without a referral and most patients are on-screen within five minutes of clicking the link we text them. They don’t have to download an app, create an account or even be an established patient of our health system. It saw over 900 patients in propecia reviews the first 12 days it was open.

That is 900 real patients that received care from a physician or advanced practice provider without risking personal exposure and without going to an already overwhelmed ED or urgent care. To date, 70 percent of the patients seen by the virtual clinic did not meet CDC testing criteria for hair loss treatment. I don’t believe we could have reached even half of these patients had the consumer application restrictions propecia reviews been kept. A program like this almost certainly wouldn’t exist if not for the regulations being lifted and even if it did, it would have taken six to 12 months to navigate barriers and implement in normal times.

Sure, the urgency of a propecia helps but the impact of provider, patients, regulators and payors being on the same page is what fueled this fire. During the virtual clinic’s first two weeks, propecia reviews my team turned its attention to getting over 300 providers across 60+ offices virtual so they could see their patients at home. Imagine being an immunocompromised cancer patient right now and being asked to leave your home and be exposed to other people in order to see your oncologist. Direct-to-consumer virtual care is the best way to safely care for these patients and without these temporary waivers it wouldn’t be covered by insurance even if you did navigate the clunky apps that are HIPAA compliant.

Do we really think the immunocompromised cancer patient feels any more comfortable every propecia reviews normal flu season?. Is it any more appropriate to ask them to risk exposure to the flu than it is to hair loss treatment?. And yet we deny them this access in normal times and it quite possibly will be stripped away from them when this crisis is over. Now 300 to 400 patients per day in our health system are seen virtually by their own primary care propecia reviews doctor or specialist for non-hair loss treatment related visits.

Not a single one of these would have been reimbursed one month ago and I am highly skeptical I would have gotten approval to use the software that connects us to the patient. Lastly, recall that prior to hair loss treatment, our system had only found 250 total patients that direct-to-consumer care was value-added and wasn’t restricted by regulation or reimbursement. hair loss treatment has been a wake-up call to the propecia reviews whole country and health care is no exception. It has put priorities in perspective and shined a light on what is truly value-added.

For direct-to-consumer virtual care it has shown us what is possible when we get out of our own way. If a propecia reviews regulation has to be removed to allow for care during a crisis then we must question why it exists in the first place. HIPAA regulation cannot go back to its antiquated practices if we are truly going to shift the focus to patient wellness. CMS and private payors must embrace value-added direct-to-consumer virtual care and allow patients the access they deserve.

hair loss treatment has forced this industry forward, we cannot allow it to regress and be forgotten when this is over propecia reviews. Tom Wood is the director of trauma and virtual care for MidMichigan Health, a non-profit health system headquartered in Midland, Michigan, affiliated with Michigan Medicine, the health care division of the University of Michigan. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.When dealing with all of the aspects of diabetes, it’s easy to let your feel fall to the bottom of the list. But daily care and evaluation is one of the best propecia reviews ways to prevent foot complications.

It’s important to identify your risk factors and take the proper steps in limiting your complications. Two of the biggest complications with diabetes are peripheral neuropathy and ulcer/amputation. Symptoms of peripheral neuropathy include numbness, tingling and/or burning in propecia reviews your feet and legs. You can slow the progression of developing neuropathy by making it a point to manage your blood sugars and keep them in the normal range.

If you are experiencing these symptoms, it is important to establish and maintain a relationship with a podiatrist. Your podiatrist can make sure things are propecia reviews looking healthy and bring things to your attention to monitor and keep a close eye on. Open wounds or ulcers can develop secondary to trauma, pressure, diabetes, neuropathy or poor circulation. If ulcerations do develop, it’s extremely important to identify the cause and address it.

Ulcers can get worse quickly, so it’s necessary to seek immediate propecia reviews medical treatment if you find yourself or a loved one dealing with this complication. Untreated ulcerations often lead to amputation and can be avoided if proper medical attention is sought right away. There are important things to remember when dealing with diabetic foot care. It’s very important to propecia reviews inspect your feet daily, especially if you have peripheral neuropathy.

You may have a cut or a sore on your feet that you can’t feel, so your body doesn’t alarm you to check your feet. Be gentle when bathing your feet. Moisturize your feet, but not between your toes. Do not treat calluses or corns on your own.

Wear clean, dry socks. Never walk barefoot, and consider socks and shoes made specifically for patients with diabetes.

For the past http://cz.keimfarben.de/buy-propecia-from-canada/ few weeks I’ve seen Facebook posts daily from former nursing colleagues in metro how to get propecia online Detroit, one of the hardest hit areas in the country, as they provide front-line care to patients with hair loss treatment. It makes me very proud to call these nurses my friends. As a former emergency department nurse, I recall the feeling of satisfaction knowing that I’ve helped someone on the worst day of their life. One of the best parts of being a nurse is knowing you matter to the only person in how to get propecia online health care that truly matters. The patient.

Several years ago I made the difficult decision to no longer perform bedside nursing and become a nurse administrator. The biggest loss from my transition is the how to get propecia online feeling that what I do matters to the patient. hair loss treatment has forced a lot of us to rethink the role we play in health care and what the real priority should be. Things that were top priorities three months ago have been rightfully cast aside to either care for patients in a propecia or prepare for the unknown future of, “When is our turn?. € For me, hair loss treatment has reignited the feeling that what how to get propecia online I do matters as virtual care has become a powerful tool on the forefront of care during this crisis.

It has also shown that many of the powerful rules and regulations that limit virtual care are not needed and should be discarded permanently. When I became the director of virtual care at our organization in 2015 I knew nothing about telehealth. Sure, I had seen a stroke robot in some Emergency Departments, and I had some friends that told me their insurance company how to get propecia online lets them FaceTime a doctor for free (spoiler alert. It’s not FaceTime). I was tech-savvy from a consumer perspective and a tech novice from an IT perspective.

Nevertheless, my team and I spent the next few years learning as we built one of the higher volume virtual care networks in the state how to get propecia online of Michigan. We discovered a lot of barriers that keep virtual care from actually making the lives of patients and providers better and we also became experts in working around those barriers. But, there were two obstacles that we could not overcome. Government regulation and insurance provider willingness to cover how to get propecia online virtual visits. These two barriers effectively cripple most legitimate attempts to provide value-added direct-to-consumer virtual care, which I define as using virtual care technologies to provide care outside of our brick-and-mortar facilities, most commonly in the patient home.

The need to social distance, cancel appointments, close provider offices, keep from overloading emergency departments and urgent cares and shelter in place created instant demand for direct-to-consumer virtual care. In all honesty, I’ve always considered direct-to-consumer virtual care to be the flashy, must-have holiday how to get propecia online gift of the year that organizations are convinced will be the way of the future. If a health system wants to provide on-demand access to patients for low-complexity acute conditions, they will easily find plenty of vendors that will sell them their app and their doctors and put the health system’s logo on it. What a health system will struggle with is to find is enough patient demand to cover the high cost. Remember my friends from earlier that told me about how to get propecia online the app their insurance gave them?.

Nearly all of them followed that up by telling me they’ve never actually used it. I am fortunate that I work for an organization that understands this and instead focuses on how can we provide care that our patients actually want and need from the doctors they want to see. Ironically, this fiscal year we had a corporate top how to get propecia online priority around direct-to-consumer virtual care. We wanted to expand what we thought were some successful pilots and perform 500 direct-to-consumer visits. This year has been one of the hardest of my leadership career because, frankly, up until a month ago I was about to fail on this top priority.

With only four how to get propecia online months left, we were only about halfway there. The biggest problem we ran into was that every great idea a physician brought to me was instantly dead in the water because practically no insurance company would pay for it. There are (prior to hair loss treatment) a plethora of rules around virtual care billing but the simplest way to summarize it is that most virtual care will only be paid if it happens in a rural location and inside of a health care facility. It is extremely limited what will be paid for in the patient home and most of it is so specific that the average patient how to get propecia online isn’t eligible to get any in-home virtual care. Therefore, most good medical uses for direct-to-consumer care would be asking the patient to pay cash or the physician to forgo reimbursement for a visit that would be covered if it happened in office.

Add to that the massive capital and operating expenses it takes to build a virtual care network and you can see why these programs don’t exist. A month ago I was skeptical we’d have how to get propecia online a robust direct-to-consumer program any time soon and then hair loss treatment hit. When hair loss treatment started to spread rapidly in the United States, regulations and reimbursement rules were being stripped daily. The first change that had major impact is when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that they would temporarily begin reimbursing for virtual visits conducted in the patient’s home for hair loss treatment and non-hair loss treatment related visits. We were already frantically designing a virtual program to handle the wave of hair loss treatment screening visits that were overloading our emergency departments and urgent cares how to get propecia online.

We were having plenty of discussions around reimbursement for this clinic. Do we attempt to bill insurances knowing they will likely deny, do we do a cash clinic model or do we do this as a community benefit and eat the cost?. The CMS waiver gave us hope that we would be compensated for diverting patients away from reimbursed visits to a virtual visit that is more how to get propecia online convenient for the patient and aligns with the concept of social distancing. Realistically we don’t know if we will be paid for any of this. We are holding all of the bills for at least 90 days while the industry sorts out the rules.

I was excited by the reimbursement how to get propecia online announcement because I knew we had eliminated one of the biggest direct-to-consumer virtual care barriers. However, I was quickly brought back to reality when I was reminded that HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) still existed. I had this crazy idea that during a propecia we should make it as easy as possible for people to receive virtual care and that the best way to do that was to meet the patient on the device they are most comfortable with and the application (FaceTime, Facebook, Skype, etc.) that they use every day. The problem is nearly every app the consumer uses on a daily basis is banned by HIPAA because “it’s not secure.” I’m not quite sure what a hacker stands to gain by listening into to my doctor and me talk about how my kids yet again gave me strep throat but apparently how to get propecia online the concern is great enough to stifle the entire industry. Sure, not every health care discussion is as low-key as strep throat and a patient may want to protect certain topics from being discussed over a “non-secure” app but why not let the patient decide through informed consent?.

Regulators could also abandon this all-or-nothing approach and lighten regulations surrounding specific health conditions. The idea how to get propecia online that regulations change based on medical situation is not new. For example, in my home state of Michigan, adolescents are essentially considered emancipated if it involves sexual health, mental health or substance abuse. Never mind that this same information is freely given over the phone by every office around the country daily without issue, http://cz.keimfarben.de/get-propecia-online/ but I digress. While my job is to innovate new pathways for care, our lawyer’s job is to protect the organization and he, along with IT security, rightfully shot down my consumer how to get propecia online applications idea.

A few days later I legitimately screamed out loud in joy when the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would use discretion on enforcing HIPAA compliance rules and specifically allowed for use of consumer applications. The elimination of billing restrictions and HIPAA regulations changed what is possible for health care organizations to offer virtually. Unfortunately both changes are listed as temporary and will likely be how to get propecia online removed when the propecia ends. Six days after the HIPAA changes were announced, we launched a centralized virtual clinic for any patient that wanted a direct-to-consumer video visit to be screened by a provider for hair loss treatment. It allows patients to call in without a referral and most patients are on-screen within five minutes of clicking the link we text them.

They don’t have to download an app, create an account or even be an established patient of our how to get propecia online health system. It saw over 900 patients in the first 12 days it was open. That is 900 real patients that received care from a physician or advanced practice provider without risking personal exposure and without going to an already overwhelmed ED or urgent care. To date, how to get propecia online 70 percent of the patients seen by the virtual clinic did not meet CDC testing criteria for hair loss treatment. I don’t believe we could have reached even half of these patients had the consumer application restrictions been kept.

A program like this almost certainly wouldn’t exist if not for the regulations being lifted and even if it did, it would have taken six to 12 months to navigate barriers and implement in normal times. Sure, the urgency of a how to get propecia online propecia helps but the impact of provider, patients, regulators and payors being on the same page is what fueled this fire. During the virtual clinic’s first two weeks, my team turned its attention to getting over 300 providers across 60+ offices virtual so they could see their patients at home. Imagine being an immunocompromised cancer patient right now and being asked to leave your home and be exposed to other people in order to see your oncologist. Direct-to-consumer virtual care is the best way to safely care for these how to get propecia online patients and without these temporary waivers it wouldn’t be covered by insurance even if you did navigate the clunky apps that are HIPAA compliant.

Do we really think the immunocompromised cancer patient feels any more comfortable every normal flu season?. Is it any more appropriate to ask them to risk exposure to the flu than it is to hair loss treatment?. And yet we deny them this access in normal times and it quite how to get propecia online possibly will be stripped away from them when this crisis is over. Now 300 to 400 patients per day in our health system are seen virtually by their own primary care doctor or specialist for non-hair loss treatment related visits. Not a single one of these would have been reimbursed one month ago and I am highly skeptical I would have gotten approval to use the software that connects us to the patient.

Lastly, recall that prior to hair loss treatment, our system had only found 250 total patients that direct-to-consumer care was value-added how to get propecia online and wasn’t restricted by regulation or reimbursement. hair loss treatment has been a wake-up call to the whole country and health care is no exception. It has put priorities in perspective and shined a light on what is truly value-added. For direct-to-consumer virtual care it has shown us what how to get propecia online is possible when we get out of our own way. If a regulation has to be removed to allow for care during a crisis then we must question why it exists in the first place.

HIPAA regulation cannot go back to its antiquated practices if we are truly going to shift the focus to patient wellness. CMS and private payors how to get propecia online must embrace value-added direct-to-consumer virtual care and allow patients the access they deserve. hair loss treatment has forced this industry forward, we cannot allow it to regress and be forgotten when this is over. Tom Wood is the director of trauma and virtual care for MidMichigan Health, a non-profit health system headquartered in Midland, Michigan, affiliated with Michigan Medicine, the health care division of the University of Michigan. The views how to get propecia online and opinions expressed in this commentary are his own.When dealing with all of the aspects of diabetes, it’s easy to let your feel fall to the bottom of the list.

But daily care and evaluation is one of the best ways to prevent foot complications. It’s important to identify your risk factors and take the proper steps in limiting your complications. Two of the biggest how to get propecia online complications with diabetes are peripheral neuropathy and ulcer/amputation. Symptoms of peripheral neuropathy include numbness, tingling and/or burning in your feet and legs. You can slow the progression of developing neuropathy by making it a point to manage your blood sugars and keep them in the normal range.

If you how to get propecia online are experiencing these symptoms, it is important to establish and maintain a relationship with a podiatrist. Your podiatrist can make sure things are looking healthy and bring things to your attention to monitor and keep a close eye on. Open wounds or ulcers can develop secondary to trauma, pressure, diabetes, neuropathy or poor circulation. If ulcerations do develop, it’s extremely important to identify the cause how to get propecia online and address it. Ulcers can get worse quickly, so it’s necessary to seek immediate medical treatment if you find yourself or a loved one dealing with this complication.

Untreated ulcerations often lead to amputation and can be avoided if proper medical attention is sought right away. There are important things to remember how to get propecia online when dealing with diabetic foot care. It’s very important to inspect your feet daily, especially if you have peripheral neuropathy. You may have a cut or a sore on your feet that you can’t feel, so your body doesn’t alarm you to check your feet. Be gentle how to get propecia online when bathing your feet.

Moisturize your feet, but not between your toes. Do not treat calluses or corns on your own. Wear clean, how to get propecia online dry socks. Never walk barefoot, and consider socks and shoes made specifically for patients with diabetes. Kristin Raleigh, D.P.M., is a podiatrist who sees patients at Foot &.

Ankle Specialists of Mid-Michigan in Midland.

What side effects may I notice from Propecia?

Side effects that usually do not require medical attention (report to your prescriber or health care professional if they continue or are bothersome):

This list may not describe all possible side effects.

Increasing propecia dosage

NONE

John Rawls begins increasing propecia dosage a Theory of Justice with the observation that 'Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought… Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override'1 (p.3). The hair loss treatment increasing propecia dosage propecia has resulted in lock-downs, the restriction of liberties, debate about the right to refuse medical treatment and many other changes to the everyday behaviour of persons. The justice issues it raises are diverse, profound and will demand our attention for some time.

How we can respect the Rawlsian commitment to the inviolability of each person, when the welfare of societies as a whole is under threat goes to the heart of some of the difficult ethical issues we face and are discussed in this issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics.The debate about ICU triage and hair loss treatment is quite well developed and this journal has published several articles that explore aspects of this issue and how different places approach it.2–5 Newdick et al add to the legal analysis of triage decisions and criticise the calls for respecting a narrow conception of a legal right to treatment and more detailed national increasing propecia dosage guidelines for how triage decisions should be made.6They consider scoring systems for clinical frailty, organ failure assessment, and raise some doubts about the fairness of their application to hair loss treatment triage situations. Their argument seems to highlight instances of what is called the McNamara fallacy. US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara used enemy body counts increasing propecia dosage as a measure of military success during the Vietnam war.

So, the fallacy occurs when we rely solely on considerations that appear to be quantifiable, to the neglect of vital qualitative, difficult to measure or contestable features.6 Newdick et al point to variation in assessment, subtlety in condition and other factors as reasons why it is misleading to present scoring systems as ‘objective’ tests for triage. In doing so they draw a distinction between procedural and outcome consistency, which is important, and hints at distinctions Rawls drew between increasing propecia dosage the different forms of procedural fairness. While we might hope to come up with a triage protocol that is procedurally fair and arrives at a fair outcome (what Rawls calls perfect procedural justice, p.

85) there is increasing propecia dosage little prospect of that. As they observe, reasonable people can disagree about the outcomes we should aim for in allocating health resources and ICU triage for hair loss treatment is no exception. Instead, we should work toward a transparent increasing propecia dosage and fair process, what Rawls would describe as imperfect procedural justice (p.

85). His example of this is a criminal trial where we adopt processes that we have reason to believe are our best chance of determining guilt, but which do not guarantee the truth of a verdict, and this is a reason why they must be transparent and consistent (p. 85).

Their proposal is to triage patients into three broad categories. High, medium and low priority, with the thought that a range of considerations could feed into that evaluation by an appropriately constituted clinical group.Ballantyne et al question another issue that is central to the debate about hair loss treatment triage.4 They describe how utility measures such as QALYs, lives saved seem to be in tension with equity. Their central point is that ICU for hair loss treatment can be futile, and that is a reason for questioning how much weight should be given to equality of access to ICU for hair loss treatment.

They claim that there is little point admitting someone to ICU when ICU is not in their best interests. Instead, the scope of equity should encompass preventing 'remediable differences among social, economic demographic or geographic groups' and for hair loss treatment that means looking beyond access to ICU. Their central argument can be summarised as follows.Maximising utility can entrench existing health inequalities.The majority of those ventilated for hair loss treatment in ICU will die.Admitting frailer or comorbid patients to ICU is likely to do more harm than good to these groups.Therefore, better access to ICU is unlikely to promote health equity for these groups.Equity for those with health inequalities related to hair loss treatment should broadened to include all the services a system might provide.Brown et al argue in favour of hair loss treatment immunity passports and the following summarises one of the key arguments in their article.7hair loss treatment immunity passports are a way of demonstrating low personal and social risk.Those who are at low personal risk and low social risk from hair loss treatment should be permitted more freedoms.Permitting those with immunity passports greater freedoms discriminates against those who do not have passports.Low personal and social risk and preserving health system capacity are relevant reasons to discriminate between those who have immunity and those who do not.Brown et al then consider a number of potential problems with immunity passports, many of which are justice issues.

Resentment by those who do not hold an immunity passport along with a loss of social cohesion, which is vital for responding to hair loss treatment, are possible downsides. There is also the potential to advantage those who are immune, economically, and it could perpetuate existing inequalities. A significant objection, which is a problem for the justice of many policies, is free riding.

Some might create fraudulent immunity passports and it might even incentivise intentional exposure to the propecia. Brown et al suggest that disincentives and punishment are potential solutions and they are in good company as the Rawlsian solution to free riding is for 'law and government to correct the necessary corrections.' (p. 268)Elves and Herring focus on a set of ethical principles intended to guide those making policy and individual level decisions about adult social care delivery impacted by the propecia.8 They criticize the British government’s framework for being silent about what to do in the face of conflict between principles.

They suggest the dominant values in the framework are based on autonomy and individualism and argue that there are good reasons for not making autonomy paramount in policy about hair loss treatment. These include that information about hair loss treatment is incomplete, so no one can be that informed on decisions about their health. The second is one that highlights the importance of viewing our present ethical challenges via the lens of justice or other ethical concepts such as community or solidarity that enable us to frame collective obligations and interests.

They observe that hair loss treatment has demonstrated how health and how we live our lives are linked. That what an individual does can have profound impact on the health of many others.Their view is that appeals to self-determination ring hollow for hair loss treatment and their proposed remedy is one that pushes us to reflect on what the liberal commitment to the inviolability of each person means. They explain Dworkin’s account of 'associative obligations' which occur within a group when they acknowledge special rights and responsibilities to each other.

These obligations are a way of giving weight to community considerations, without collapsing into full-blown utilitarianism and while still respecting the inviolability of persons.The hair loss treatment propecia is pushing ethical deliberation in new directions and many of them turn on approaching medical ethics with a greater emphasis on justice and related ethical concepts.IntroductionAs hair loss treatment spread internationally, healthcare services in many countries became overwhelmed. One of the main manifestations of this was a shortage of intensive care beds, leading to urgent discussion about how to allocate these fairly. In the initial debates about allocation of scarce intensive care unit (ICU) resources, there was optimism about the ‘good’ of ICU access.

However, rather than being a life-saving intervention, data began to emerge in mid-April showing that most critical patients with hair loss treatment who receive access to a ventilator do not survive to discharge. The minority who survive leave the ICU with significant morbidity and a long and uncertain road to recovery. This reality was under-recognised in bioethics debates about ICU triage throughout March and April 2020.

Central to these disucssions were two assumptions. First, that ICU admission was a valuable but scarce resource in the propecia context. And second, that both equity and utility considerations were important in determining which patients should have access to ICU.

In this paper we explain how scarcity and value were conflated in the early ICU hair loss treatment triage literature, leading to undue optimism about the ‘good’ of ICU access, which in turned fuelled equity-based arguments for ICU access. In the process, ethical issues regarding equitable access to end-of-life care more broadly were neglected.Equity requires the prevention of avoidable or remediable differences among social, economic, demographic, or geographic groups.1 How best to apply an equity lens to questions of distribution will depend on the nature of the resource in question. Equitable distribution of ICU beds is significantly more complex than equitable distribution of other goods that might be scarce in a propecia, such as masks or treatments.

ICU (especially that which involves intubation and ventilation i.e. Mechanical ventilation) is a burdensome treatment option that can lead to significant suffering—both short and long term. The degree to which these burdens are justified depends on the probability of benefit, and this depends on the clinical status of the patient.

People are rightly concerned about the equity implications of excluding patients from ICU on the grounds of pre-existing comorbidities that directly affect prognosis, especially when these align with and reflect social disadvantage. But this does not mean that aged, frail or comorbid patients should be admitted to ICU on the grounds of equity, when this may not be in their best interests.ICU triage debateThe hair loss treatment propecia generated extraordinary demand for critical care and required hard choices about who will receive presumed life-saving interventions such as ICU admission. The debate has focused on whether or not a utilitarian approach aimed at maximising the number of lives (or life-years) saved should be supplemented by equity considerations that attempt to protect the rights and interests of members of marginalised groups.

The utilitarian approach uses criteria for access to ICU that focus on capacity to benefit, understood as survival.2 Supplementary equity considerations have been invoked to relax the criteria in order to give a more diverse group of people a chance of entering ICU.3 4Equity-based critiques are grounded in the concern that a utilitarian approach aimed at maximising the number (or length) of lives saved may well exacerbate inequity in survival rates between groups. This potential for discrimination is heightened if triage tools use age as a proxy for capacity to benefit or are heavily reliant on Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) which will deprioritise people with disabilities.5 6 Even if these pitfalls are avoided, policies based on maximising lives saved entrench existing heath inequalities because those most likely to benefit from treatment will be people of privilege who come into the propecia with better health status than less advantaged people. Those from lower socioeconomic groups, and/or some ethnic minorities have high rates of underlying comorbidities, some of which are prognostically relevant in hair loss treatment .

Public health ethics requires that we acknowledge how apparently neutral triage tools reflect and reinforce these disparities, especially where the impact can be lethal.7But the utility versus equity debate is more complex than it first appears. Both the utility and equity approach to ICU triage start from the assumption that ICU is a valuable good—the dispute is about how best to allocate it. Casting ICU admission as a scarce good subject to rationing has the (presumably unintended) effect of making access to critical care look highly appealing, triggering cognitive biases.

Psychologists and marketers know that scarcity sells.8 People value a commodity more when it is difficult or impossible to obtain.9 When there is competition for scarce resources, people focus less on whether they really need or want the resource. The priority becomes securing access to the resource.Clinicians are not immune to scarcity-related cognitive bias. Clinicians treating patients with hair loss treatment are working under conditions of significant information overload but without the high quality clinical research (generated from large data sets and rigorous methodology) usually available for decision-making.

The combination of overwhelming numbers of patients, high acuity and uncertainty regarding best practice is deeply anxiety provoking. In this context it is unsurprising that, at least in the early stages of the propecia, they may not have the psychological bandwidth to challenge assumptions about the benefits of ICU admission for patients with severe disease. Zagury-Orly and Schwartzstein have recently argued that the health sector must accept that doctors’ reasoning and decision-making are susceptible to human anxieties and in the “…effort to ‘do good’ for our patients, we may fall prey to cognitive biases and therapeutic errors”.10We suggest the global publicity and panic regarding ICU triage distorted assessments of best interests and decision-making about admittance to ICU and slanted ethical debate.

This has the potential to compromise important decisions with regard to care for patients with hair loss treatment.The emerging reality of ICUIn general, the majority of patients who are ventilated for hair loss treatment in ICU will die. Although comparing data from different health systems is challenging due to variation in admission criteria for ICU, clear trends are emerging with regard to those critically unwell and requiring mechanical ventilation. Emerging data show case fatality rates of 50%–88% for ventilated patients with hair loss treatment.

In China11 and Italy about half of those with hair loss treatment who receive ventilator support have not survived.12 In one small study in Wuhan the ICU mortality rate among those who received invasive mechanical ventilation was 86% (19/22).13 Interestingly, the rate among those who received less intensive non-invasive ventilation (NIV)1 was still 79% (23/29).13 Analysis of 5700 patients in the New York City area showed that the mortality for those receiving mechanical ventilation was 88%.14 In the UK, only 20% of those who have received mechanical ventilation have been discharged alive.15 Hence, the very real possibility of medical futility with regard to ventilation in hair loss treatment needs to be considered.It is also important to consider the complications and side effects that occur in an ICU context. These patients are vulnerable to hospital acquired s such as ventilator associated pneumonias with high mortality rates in their own right,16 neuropathies, myopathies17 and skin damage. Significant long term morbidity (physical, mental and emotional challenges) can also be experienced by people who survive prolonged ventilation in ICU.12 18 Under normal (non-propecia) circumstances, many ICU patients experience significant muscle atrophy and deconditioning, sleep disorders, severe fatigue,19 post-traumatic stress disorder,20 cognitive deficits,21 depression, anxiety, difficulty with daily activities and loss of employment.22 Although it is too soon to have data on the long term outcomes of ICU survivors in the specific context of hair loss treatment, the UK Chartered Society of Physiotherapy predicts a ‘tsunami of rehabilitation needs’ as patients with hair loss treatment begin to be discharged.23 The indirect effects of carer-burden should also not be underestimated, as research shows that caring for patients who have survived critical illness results in high levels of depressive symptoms for the majority of caregivers.24The emerging mortality data for patients with hair loss treatment admitted to ICU—in conjunction with what is already known about the morbidity of ICU survivors—has significant implications for the utility–equity debates about allocating the scarce resource of ICU beds.

First, they undermine the utility argument as there seems to be little evidence that ICU admission leads to better outcomes for patients, especially when the long term morbidity of extended ICU admission is included in the balance of burdens and benefits. For some patients, perhaps many, the burdens of ICU will not outweigh the limited potential benefits. Second, the poor survival rates challenge the equity-based claim for preferential access to treatment for members of disadvantaged groups.

In particular, admitting frailer or comorbid patients to ICU to fulfil equity goals is unlikely to achieve greater survival for these population groups, but will increase their risk of complications and may ultimately exacerbate or prolong their suffering.The high proportions of people who die despite ICU admission make it particularly important to consider what might constitute better or worse experiences of dying with hair loss treatment, and how ICU admission affects the likelihood of a ‘good’ death. Critical care may compromise the ability of patients to communicate and engage with their families during the terminal phase of their lives—in the context of an intubated, ventilated patient this is unequivocal.Given the high rates of medical futility with patients with hair loss treatment in ICU, the very significant risks for further suffering in the short and long term and the compromise of important psychosocial needs—such as communicating with our families—in the terminal phase of life, our ethical scope must be wider than ICU triage. Ho and Tsai argue that, “In considering effective and efficient allocation of healthcare resources as well as physical and psychological harm that can be incurred in prolonging the dying process, there is a critical need to reframe end-of-life care planning in the ICU.”25 We propose that the focus on equity concerns during the propecia should broaden to include providing all people who need it with access to the highest possible standard of end-of-life care.

This requires attention to minimising barriers to accessing culturally safe care in the following interlinked areas. Palliative care, and communication and decision support and advanced care planning.Palliative careScaling up palliative and hospice care is an essential component of the hair loss treatment propecia response. Avoiding non-beneficial or unwanted high-intensity care is critical when the capacity of the health system is stressed.26 Palliative care focuses on symptom management, quality of life and death, and holistic care of physical, psychological, social and spiritual health.27 Evidence from Italy has prompted recommendations that, “Governments must urgently recognise the essential contribution of hospice and palliative care to the hair loss treatment propecia, and ensure these services are integrated into the healthcare system response.”28 Rapid palliative care policy changes were implemented in response to hair loss treatment in Italy, including more support in community settings, change in admission criteria and daily telephone support for families.28 To meet this increased demand, hospice and palliative care staff should be included in personal protective equipment (PPE) allocation and provided with appropriate preventon and control training when dealing with patients with hair loss treatment or high risk areas.Attention must also be directed to maintaining supply lines for essential medications for pain, distress and sedation.

Patients may experience pain due to existing comorbidities, but may also develop pain as a result of excessive coughing or immobility from hair loss treatment. Such symptoms should be addressed using existing approaches to pain management.27 Supply lines for essential medications for distress and pain management, including fentanyl and midazolam are under threat in the USA and propofol—used in terminal sedation—may also be in short supply.29 The challenges are exacerbated when people who for various reasons eschew or are unable to secure hospital admission decline rapidly at home with hair loss treatment (the time frame of recognition that someone is dying may be shorter than that through which hospice at home services usually support people). There is growing debate about the fair allocation of novel drugs—sometimes available as part of ongoing clinical trials—to treat hair loss treatment with curative intent.2 30 But we must also pay attention to the fair allocation of drugs needed to ease suffering and dying.Communication and end-of-life decision-making supportEnd-of-life planning can be especially challenging because patients, family members and healthcare providers often differ in what they consider most important near the end of life.31 Less than half of ICU physicians—40.6% in high income countries and 46.3% in low–middle income countries—feel comfortable holding end-of-life discussions with patients’ families.25 With ICUs bursting and health providers under extraordinary pressure, their capacity to effectively support end-of-life decisions and to ease dying will be reduced.This suggests a need for specialist hair loss treatment communication support teams, analogous to the idea of specialist ICU triage teams to ensure consistency of decision making about ICU admissions/discharges, and to reduce the moral and psychological distress of health providers during the propecia.32 These support teams could provide up to date information templates for patients and families, support decision-making, the development of advance care plans (ACPs) and act as a liaison between families (prevented from being in the hospital), the patient and the clinical team.

Some people with disabilities may require additional communication support to ensure the patients’ needs are communicated to all health providers.33 This will be especially important if carers and visitors are not able to be present.To provide effective and appropriate support in an equitable way, communication teams will need to include those with the appropriate skills for caring for diverse populations including. Interpreters, specialist social workers, disability advocates and cultural support liaison officers for ethnic and religious minorities. Patient groups that already have comparatively poor health outcomes require dedicated resources.

These support resources are essential if we wish to truly mitigate equity concerns that arisingduring the propecia context. See Box 1 for examples of specific communication and care strategies to support patients.Box 1 Supporting communication and compassionate care during hair loss treatmentDespite the sometimes overwhelming pressure of the propecia, health providers continue to invest in communication, compassionate care and end-of-life support. In some places, doctors have taken photos of their faces and taped these to the front of their PPE so that patients can ‘see’ their face.37 In Singapore, patients who test positive for hair loss are quarantined in health facilities until they receive two consecutive negative tests.

Patients may be isolated in hospital for several weeks. To help ease this burden on patients, health providers have dubbed themselves the ‘second family’ and gone out of their way to provide care as well as treatment. Elsewhere, medical, nursing and multi-disciplinary teams are utilising internet based devices to enable ‘virtual’ visits and contact between patients and their loved ones.38 Some centres are providing staff with masks with a see-through window panel that shows the wearer’s mouth, to support effective communication with patient with hearing loss who rely on lip reading.39Advance care planningACPs aim to honour decisions made by autonomous patients if and when they lose capacity.

However, talking to patients and their loved ones about clinical prognosis, ceilings of treatment and potential end-of-life care is challenging even in normal times. During hair loss treatment the challenges are exacerbated by uncertainty and urgency, the absence of family support (due to visitor restrictions) and the wearing of PPE by clinicians and carers. Protective equipment can create a formidable barrier between the patient and the provider, often adding to the patient’s sense of isolation and fear.

An Australian palliative care researcher with experience working in disaster zones, argues that the “PPE may disguise countenance, restrict normal human touch and create an unfamiliar gulf between you and your patient.”34 The physical and psychological barriers of PPE coupled with the pressure of high clinical loads do not seem conducive to compassionate discussions about patients’ end-of-life preferences. Indeed, a study in Singapore during the 2004 SARS epidemic demonstrated the barrier posed by PPE to compassionate end-of-life care.35Clinicians may struggle to interpret existing ACPs in the context of hair loss treatment, given the unprecedented nature and scale of the propecia and emerging clinical knowledge about the aetiology of the disease and (perhaps especially) about prognosis. This suggests the need for hair loss treatment-specific ACPs.

Where possible, proactive planning should occur with high-risk patients, the frail, those in residential care and those with significant underlying morbidities. Ideally, ACP conversations should take place prior to illness, involve known health providers and carers, not be hampered by PPE or subject to time constraints imposed by acute care contexts. Of note here, a systematic review found that patients who received advance care planning or palliative care interventions consistently showed a pattern toward decreased ICU admissions and reduced ICU length of stay.36ConclusionHow best to address equity concerns in relation to ICU and end-of-life care for patients with hair loss treatment is challenging and complex.

Attempts to broaden clinical criteria to give patients with poorer prognoses access to ICU on equity grounds may result in fewer lives saved overall—this may well be justified if access to ICU confers benefit to these ‘equity’ patients. But we must avoid tokenistic gestures to equity—admitting patients with poor prognostic indicators to ICU to meet an equity target when intensive critical care is contrary to their best interests. ICU admission may exacerbate and prolong suffering rather than ameliorate it, especially for frailer patients.

And prolonging life at all costs may ultimately lead to a worse death. The capacity for harm not just the capacity for benefit should be emphasised in any triage tools and related literature. Equity can be addressed more robustly if propecia responses scale up investment in palliative care services, communication and decision-support services and advanced care planning to meet the needs of all patients with hair loss treatment.

Ultimately, however, equity considerations will require us to move even further from a critical care framework as the social and economic impact of the propecia will disproportionately impact those most vulnerable. Globally, we will need an approach that does not just stop an exponential rise in s but an exponential rise in inequality.AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank Tracy Anne Dunbrook and David Tripp for their helpful comments, and NUS Medicine for permission to reproduce the hair loss treatment Chronicles strip..

John Rawls begins Check Out Your URL a Theory of Justice with the observation that 'Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought… Each person possesses how to get propecia online an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override'1 (p.3). The hair loss treatment propecia has resulted in lock-downs, the restriction of liberties, debate about the right to refuse medical treatment and many how to get propecia online other changes to the everyday behaviour of persons. The justice issues it raises are diverse, profound and will demand our attention for some time.

How we can respect the Rawlsian commitment to the inviolability of each person, when the welfare of societies as a whole is under threat goes to the heart of some of the difficult ethical issues we face and are discussed in this issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics.The debate about ICU triage and hair loss treatment is quite well developed and this journal has published several articles that explore aspects of this issue and how different places approach it.2–5 Newdick et al add to how to get propecia online the legal analysis of triage decisions and criticise the calls for respecting a narrow conception of a legal right to treatment and more detailed national guidelines for how triage decisions should be made.6They consider scoring systems for clinical frailty, organ failure assessment, and raise some doubts about the fairness of their application to hair loss treatment triage situations. Their argument seems to highlight instances of what is called the McNamara fallacy. US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara used enemy body counts as a measure of how to get propecia online military success during the Vietnam war.

So, the fallacy occurs when we rely solely on considerations that appear to be quantifiable, to the neglect of vital qualitative, difficult to measure or contestable features.6 Newdick et al point to variation in assessment, subtlety in condition and other factors as reasons why it is misleading to present scoring systems as ‘objective’ tests for triage. In doing how to get propecia online so they draw a distinction between procedural and outcome consistency, which is important, and hints at distinctions Rawls drew between the different forms of procedural fairness. While we might hope to come up with a triage protocol that is procedurally fair and arrives at a fair outcome (what Rawls calls perfect procedural justice, p.

85) there is little prospect of how to get propecia online that. As they observe, reasonable people can disagree about the outcomes we should aim for in allocating health resources and ICU triage for hair loss treatment is no exception. Instead, we should work toward a how to get propecia online transparent and fair process, what Rawls would describe as imperfect procedural justice (p.

85). His example of this is a criminal trial where we adopt processes that we have reason to believe are our best chance of determining guilt, but which do not guarantee the truth of a verdict, and this is a reason why they must be transparent and consistent (p. 85).

Their proposal is to triage patients into three broad categories. High, medium and low priority, with the thought that a range of considerations could feed into that evaluation by an appropriately constituted clinical group.Ballantyne et al question another issue that is central to the debate about hair loss treatment triage.4 They describe how utility measures such as QALYs, lives saved seem to be in tension with equity. Their central point is that ICU for hair loss treatment can be futile, and that is a reason for questioning how much weight should be given to equality of access to ICU for hair loss treatment.

They claim that there is little point admitting someone to ICU when ICU is not in their best interests. Instead, the scope of equity should encompass preventing 'remediable differences among social, economic demographic or geographic groups' and for hair loss treatment that means looking beyond access to ICU. Their central argument can be summarised as follows.Maximising utility can entrench existing health inequalities.The majority of those ventilated for hair loss treatment in ICU will die.Admitting frailer or comorbid patients to ICU is likely to do more harm than good to these groups.Therefore, better access to ICU is unlikely to promote health equity for these groups.Equity for those with health inequalities related to hair loss treatment should broadened to include all the services a system might provide.Brown et al argue in favour of hair loss treatment immunity passports and the following summarises one of the key arguments in their article.7hair loss treatment immunity passports are a way of demonstrating low personal and social risk.Those who are at low personal risk and low social risk from hair loss treatment should be permitted more freedoms.Permitting those with immunity passports greater freedoms discriminates against those who do not have passports.Low personal and social risk and preserving health system capacity are relevant reasons to discriminate between those who have immunity and those who do not.Brown et al then consider a number of potential problems with immunity passports, many of which are justice issues.

Resentment by those who do not hold an immunity passport along with a loss of social cohesion, which is vital for responding to hair loss treatment, are possible downsides. There is also the potential to advantage those who are immune, economically, and it could perpetuate existing inequalities. A significant objection, which is a problem for the justice of many policies, is free riding.

Some might create fraudulent immunity passports and it might even incentivise intentional exposure to the propecia. Brown et al suggest that disincentives and punishment are potential solutions and they are in good company as the Rawlsian solution to free riding is for 'law and government to correct the necessary corrections.' (p. 268)Elves and Herring focus on a set of ethical principles intended to guide those making policy and individual level decisions about adult social care delivery impacted by the propecia.8 They criticize the British government’s framework for being silent about what to do in the face of conflict between principles.

They suggest the dominant values in the framework are based on autonomy and individualism and argue that there are good reasons for not making autonomy paramount in policy about hair loss treatment. These include that information about hair loss treatment is incomplete, so no one can be that informed on decisions about their health. The second is one that highlights the importance of viewing our present ethical challenges via the lens of justice or other ethical concepts such as community or solidarity that enable us to frame collective obligations and interests.

They observe that hair loss treatment has demonstrated how health and how we live our lives are linked. That what an individual does can have profound impact on the health of many others.Their view is that appeals to self-determination ring hollow for hair loss treatment and their proposed remedy is one that pushes us to reflect on what the liberal commitment to the inviolability of each person means. They explain Dworkin’s account of 'associative obligations' which occur within a group when they acknowledge special rights and responsibilities to each other.

These obligations are a way of giving weight to community considerations, without collapsing into full-blown utilitarianism and while still respecting the inviolability of persons.The hair loss treatment propecia is pushing ethical deliberation in new directions and many of them turn on approaching medical ethics with a greater emphasis on justice and related ethical concepts.IntroductionAs hair loss treatment spread internationally, healthcare services in many countries became overwhelmed. One of the main manifestations of this was a shortage of intensive care beds, leading to urgent discussion about how to allocate these fairly. In the initial debates about allocation of scarce intensive care unit (ICU) resources, there was optimism about the ‘good’ of ICU access.

However, rather than being a life-saving intervention, data began to emerge in mid-April showing that most critical patients with hair loss treatment who receive access to a ventilator do not survive to discharge. The minority who survive leave the ICU with significant morbidity and a long and uncertain road to recovery. This reality was under-recognised in bioethics debates about ICU triage throughout March and April 2020.

Central to these disucssions were two assumptions. First, that ICU admission was a valuable but scarce resource in the propecia context. And second, that both equity and utility considerations were important in determining which patients should have access to ICU.

In this paper we explain how scarcity and value were conflated in the early ICU hair loss treatment triage literature, leading to undue optimism about the ‘good’ of ICU access, which in turned fuelled equity-based arguments for ICU access. In the process, ethical issues regarding equitable access to end-of-life care more broadly were neglected.Equity requires the prevention of avoidable or remediable differences among social, economic, demographic, or geographic groups.1 How best to apply an equity lens to questions of distribution will depend on the nature of the resource in question. Equitable distribution of ICU beds is significantly more complex than equitable distribution of other goods that might be scarce in a propecia, such as masks or treatments.

ICU (especially that which involves intubation and ventilation i.e. Mechanical ventilation) is a burdensome treatment option that can lead to significant suffering—both short and long term. The degree to which these burdens are justified depends on the probability of benefit, and this depends on the clinical status of the patient.

People are rightly concerned about the equity implications of excluding patients from ICU on the grounds of pre-existing comorbidities that directly affect prognosis, especially when these align with and reflect social disadvantage. But this does not mean that aged, frail or comorbid patients should be admitted to ICU on the grounds of equity, when this may not be in their best interests.ICU triage debateThe hair loss treatment propecia generated extraordinary demand for critical care and required hard choices about who will receive presumed life-saving interventions such as ICU admission. The debate has focused on whether or not a utilitarian approach aimed at maximising the number of lives (or life-years) saved should be supplemented by equity considerations that attempt to protect the rights and interests of members of marginalised groups.

The utilitarian approach uses criteria for access to ICU that focus on capacity to benefit, understood as survival.2 Supplementary equity considerations have been invoked to relax the criteria in order to give a more diverse group of people a chance of entering ICU.3 4Equity-based critiques are grounded in the concern that a utilitarian approach aimed at maximising the number (or length) of lives saved may well exacerbate inequity in survival rates between groups. This potential for discrimination is heightened if triage tools use age as a proxy for capacity to benefit or are heavily reliant on Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs) which will deprioritise people with disabilities.5 6 Even if these pitfalls are avoided, policies based on maximising lives saved entrench existing heath inequalities because those most likely to benefit from treatment will be people of privilege who come into the propecia with better health status than less advantaged people. Those from lower socioeconomic groups, and/or some ethnic minorities have high rates of underlying comorbidities, some of which are prognostically relevant in hair loss treatment .

Public health ethics requires that we acknowledge how apparently neutral triage tools reflect and reinforce these disparities, especially where the impact can be lethal.7But the utility versus equity debate is more complex than it first appears. Both the utility and equity approach to ICU triage start from the assumption that ICU is a valuable good—the dispute is about how best to allocate it. Casting ICU admission as a scarce good subject to rationing has the (presumably unintended) effect of making access to critical care look highly appealing, triggering cognitive biases.

Psychologists and marketers know that scarcity sells.8 People value a commodity more when it is difficult or impossible to obtain.9 When there is competition for scarce resources, people focus less on whether they really need or want the resource. The priority becomes securing access to the resource.Clinicians are not immune to scarcity-related cognitive bias. Clinicians treating patients with hair loss treatment are working under conditions of significant information overload but without the high quality clinical research (generated from large data sets and rigorous methodology) usually available for decision-making.

The combination of overwhelming numbers of patients, high acuity and uncertainty regarding best practice is deeply anxiety provoking. In this context it is unsurprising that, at least in the early stages of the propecia, they may not have the psychological bandwidth to challenge assumptions about the benefits of ICU admission for patients with severe disease. Zagury-Orly and Schwartzstein have recently argued that the health sector must accept that doctors’ reasoning and decision-making are susceptible to human anxieties and in the “…effort to ‘do good’ for our patients, we may fall prey to cognitive biases and therapeutic errors”.10We suggest the global publicity and panic regarding ICU triage distorted assessments of best interests and decision-making about admittance to ICU and slanted ethical debate.

This has the potential to compromise important decisions with regard to care for patients with hair loss treatment.The emerging reality of ICUIn general, the majority of patients who are ventilated for hair loss treatment in ICU will die. Although comparing data from different health systems is challenging due to variation in admission criteria for ICU, clear trends are emerging with regard to those critically unwell and requiring mechanical ventilation. Emerging data show case fatality rates of 50%–88% for ventilated patients with hair loss treatment.

In China11 and Italy about half of those with hair loss treatment who receive ventilator support have not survived.12 In one small study in Wuhan the ICU mortality rate among those who received invasive mechanical ventilation was 86% (19/22).13 Interestingly, the rate among those who received less intensive non-invasive ventilation (NIV)1 was still 79% (23/29).13 Analysis of 5700 patients in the New York City area showed that the mortality for those receiving mechanical ventilation was 88%.14 In the UK, only 20% of those who have received mechanical ventilation have been discharged alive.15 Hence, the very real possibility of medical futility with regard to ventilation in hair loss treatment needs to be considered.It is also important to consider the complications and side effects that occur in an ICU context. These patients are vulnerable to hospital acquired s such as ventilator associated pneumonias with high mortality rates in their own right,16 neuropathies, myopathies17 and skin damage. Significant long term morbidity (physical, mental and emotional challenges) can also be experienced by people who survive prolonged ventilation in ICU.12 18 Under normal (non-propecia) circumstances, many ICU patients experience significant muscle atrophy and deconditioning, sleep disorders, severe fatigue,19 post-traumatic stress disorder,20 cognitive deficits,21 depression, anxiety, difficulty with daily activities and loss of employment.22 Although it is too soon to have data on the long term outcomes of ICU survivors in the specific context of hair loss treatment, the UK Chartered Society of Physiotherapy predicts a ‘tsunami of rehabilitation needs’ as patients with hair loss treatment begin to be discharged.23 The indirect effects of carer-burden should also not be underestimated, as research shows that caring for patients who have survived critical illness results in high levels of depressive symptoms for the majority of caregivers.24The emerging mortality data for patients with hair loss treatment admitted to ICU—in conjunction with what is already known about the morbidity of ICU survivors—has significant implications for the utility–equity debates about allocating the scarce resource of ICU beds.

First, they undermine the utility argument as there seems to be little evidence that ICU admission leads to better outcomes for patients, especially when the long term morbidity of extended ICU admission is included in the balance of burdens and benefits. For some patients, perhaps many, the burdens of ICU will not outweigh the limited potential benefits. Second, the poor survival rates challenge the equity-based claim for preferential access to treatment for members of disadvantaged groups.

In particular, admitting frailer or comorbid patients to ICU to fulfil equity goals is unlikely to achieve greater survival for these population groups, but will increase their risk of complications and may ultimately exacerbate or prolong their suffering.The high proportions of people who die despite ICU admission make it particularly important to consider what might constitute better or worse experiences of dying with hair loss treatment, and how ICU admission affects the likelihood of a ‘good’ death. Critical care may compromise the ability of patients to communicate and engage with their families during the terminal phase of their lives—in the context of an intubated, ventilated patient this is unequivocal.Given the high rates of medical futility with patients with hair loss treatment in ICU, the very significant risks for further suffering in the short and long term and the compromise of important psychosocial needs—such as communicating with our families—in the terminal phase of life, our ethical scope must be wider than ICU triage. Ho and Tsai argue that, “In considering effective and efficient allocation of healthcare resources as well as physical and psychological harm that can be incurred in prolonging the dying process, there is a critical need to reframe end-of-life care planning in the ICU.”25 We propose that the focus on equity concerns during the propecia should broaden to include providing all people who need it with access to the highest possible standard of end-of-life care.

This requires attention to minimising barriers to accessing culturally safe care in the following interlinked areas. Palliative care, and communication and decision support and advanced care planning.Palliative careScaling up palliative and hospice care is an essential component of the hair loss treatment propecia response. Avoiding non-beneficial or unwanted high-intensity care is critical when the capacity of the health system is stressed.26 Palliative care focuses on symptom management, quality of life and death, and holistic care of physical, psychological, social and spiritual health.27 Evidence from Italy has prompted recommendations that, “Governments must urgently recognise the essential contribution of hospice and palliative care to the hair loss treatment propecia, and ensure these services are integrated into the healthcare system response.”28 Rapid palliative care policy changes were implemented in response to hair loss treatment in Italy, including more support in community settings, change in admission criteria and daily telephone support for families.28 To meet this increased demand, hospice and palliative care staff should be included in personal protective equipment (PPE) allocation and provided with appropriate preventon and control training when dealing with patients with hair loss treatment or high risk areas.Attention must also be directed to maintaining supply lines for essential medications for pain, distress and sedation.

Patients may experience pain due to existing comorbidities, but may also develop pain as a result of excessive coughing or immobility from hair loss treatment. Such symptoms should be addressed using existing approaches to pain management.27 Supply lines for essential medications for distress and pain management, including fentanyl and midazolam are under threat in the USA and propofol—used in terminal sedation—may also be in short supply.29 The challenges are exacerbated when people who for various reasons eschew or are unable to secure hospital admission decline rapidly at home with hair loss treatment (the time frame of recognition that someone is dying may be shorter than that through which hospice at home services usually support people). There is growing debate about the fair allocation of novel drugs—sometimes available as part of ongoing clinical trials—to treat hair loss treatment with curative intent.2 30 But we must also pay attention to the fair allocation of drugs needed to ease suffering and dying.Communication and end-of-life decision-making supportEnd-of-life planning can be especially challenging because patients, family members and healthcare providers often differ in what they consider most important near the end of life.31 Less than half of ICU physicians—40.6% in high income countries and 46.3% in low–middle income countries—feel comfortable holding end-of-life discussions with patients’ families.25 With ICUs bursting and health providers under extraordinary pressure, their capacity to effectively support end-of-life decisions and to ease dying will be reduced.This suggests a need for specialist hair loss treatment communication support teams, analogous to the idea of specialist ICU triage teams to ensure consistency of decision making about ICU admissions/discharges, and to reduce the moral and psychological distress of health providers during the propecia.32 These support teams could provide up to date information templates for patients and families, support decision-making, the development of advance care plans (ACPs) and act as a liaison between families (prevented from being in the hospital), the patient and the clinical team.

Some people with disabilities may require additional communication support to ensure the patients’ needs are communicated to all health providers.33 This will be especially important if carers and visitors are not able to be present.To provide effective and appropriate support in an equitable way, communication teams will need to include those with the appropriate skills for caring for diverse populations including. Interpreters, specialist social workers, disability advocates and cultural support liaison officers for ethnic and religious minorities. Patient groups that already have comparatively poor health outcomes require dedicated resources.

These support resources are essential if we wish to truly mitigate equity concerns that arisingduring the propecia context. See Box 1 for examples of specific communication and care strategies to support patients.Box 1 Supporting communication and compassionate care during hair loss treatmentDespite the sometimes overwhelming pressure of the propecia, health providers continue to invest in communication, compassionate care and end-of-life support. In some places, doctors have taken photos of their faces and taped these to the front of their PPE so that patients can ‘see’ their face.37 In Singapore, patients who test positive for hair loss are quarantined in health facilities until they receive two consecutive negative tests.

Patients may be isolated in hospital for several weeks. To help ease this burden on patients, health providers have dubbed themselves the ‘second family’ and gone out of their way to provide care as well as treatment. Elsewhere, medical, nursing and multi-disciplinary teams are utilising internet based devices to enable ‘virtual’ visits and contact between patients and their loved ones.38 Some centres are providing staff with masks with a see-through window panel that shows the wearer’s mouth, to support effective communication with patient with hearing loss who rely on lip reading.39Advance care planningACPs aim to honour decisions made by autonomous patients if and when they lose capacity.

However, talking to patients and their loved ones about clinical prognosis, ceilings of treatment and potential end-of-life care is challenging even in normal times. During hair loss treatment the challenges are exacerbated by uncertainty and urgency, the absence of family support (due to visitor restrictions) and the wearing of PPE by clinicians and carers. Protective equipment can create a formidable barrier between the patient and the provider, often adding to the patient’s sense of isolation and fear.

An Australian palliative care researcher with experience working in disaster zones, argues that the “PPE may disguise countenance, restrict normal human touch and create an unfamiliar gulf between you and your patient.”34 The physical and psychological barriers of PPE coupled with the pressure of high clinical loads do not seem conducive to compassionate discussions about patients’ end-of-life preferences. Indeed, a study in Singapore during the 2004 SARS epidemic demonstrated the barrier posed by PPE to compassionate end-of-life care.35Clinicians may struggle to interpret existing ACPs in the context of hair loss treatment, given the unprecedented nature and scale of the propecia and emerging clinical knowledge about the aetiology of the disease and (perhaps especially) about prognosis. This suggests the need for hair loss treatment-specific ACPs.

Where possible, proactive planning should occur with high-risk patients, the frail, those in residential care and those with significant underlying morbidities. Ideally, ACP conversations should take place prior to illness, involve known health providers and carers, not be hampered by PPE or subject to time constraints imposed by acute care contexts. Of note here, a systematic review found that patients who received advance care planning or palliative care interventions consistently showed a pattern toward decreased ICU admissions and reduced ICU length of stay.36ConclusionHow best to address equity concerns in relation to ICU and end-of-life care for patients with hair loss treatment is challenging and complex.

Attempts to broaden clinical criteria to give patients with poorer prognoses access to ICU on equity grounds may result in fewer lives saved overall—this may well be justified if access to ICU confers benefit to these ‘equity’ patients. But we must avoid tokenistic gestures to equity—admitting patients with poor prognostic indicators to ICU to meet an equity target when intensive critical care is contrary to their best interests. ICU admission may exacerbate and prolong suffering rather than ameliorate it, especially for frailer patients.

And prolonging life at all costs may ultimately lead to a worse death. The capacity for harm not just the capacity for benefit should be emphasised in any triage tools and related literature. Equity can be addressed more robustly if propecia responses scale up investment in palliative care services, communication and decision-support services and advanced care planning to meet the needs of all patients with hair loss treatment.

Ultimately, however, equity considerations will require us to move even further from a critical care framework as the social and economic impact of the propecia will disproportionately impact those most vulnerable. Globally, we will need an approach that does not just stop an exponential rise in s but an exponential rise in inequality.AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank Tracy Anne Dunbrook and David Tripp for their helpful comments, and NUS Medicine for permission to reproduce the hair loss treatment Chronicles strip..