Physicians' obligations to patients infected with Ebola: echoes of acquired immune deficiency syndrome

Physicians across the United States are engaged in training in the identification, isolation, and initial care of patients with Ebola. Some will be asked to do more. The issue this viewpoint will address is the moral obligation of physicians to participate in these activities. In order to do so the implicit contract between society and its physicians will be considered, as will many of the arguments that are redolent of those that were litigated 30 years ago when acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) was raising public fears to similar levels, and some physicians were publically proclaiming their unwillingness to render care to those individuals. We will build the case that if steps are taken to reduce risks-optimal personal protective equipment and training-to what is essentially the lowest possible level then rendering care should be seen as obligatory. If not, as in the AIDS era there will be an unfair distribution of risk, with those who take their obligations seriously having to go beyond their fair measure of exposure. It would also potentially undermine patients' faith in the altruism of physicians and thereby degrade the esteem in which our profession is held and the trust that underpins the therapeutic relationship. Finally there is an implicit contract with society. Society gives tremendously to us; we encumber a debt from all society does and offers, a debt for which recompense is rarely sought. The mosaic of moral, historical, and professional imperatives to render care to the infected all echoes the words of medicine's moral leaders in the AIDS epidemic. Arnold Relman perhaps put it most succinctly, “the risk of contracting the patient's disease is one of the risks that is inherent in the profession of medicine. Physicians who are not willing to accept that risk…ought not be in the practice of medicine.”