Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Life & Times

The trolley problem, 2021 style

David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (703): 75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp21X714773
David Misselbrook
Email:
Roles: Deputy Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: DMisselbrook@rcsi-mub.com
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

To ethicists ‘the trolley problem’ does not relate to the number of patients spilling out into hospital corridors, waiting to receive care. It relates to a 1960s thought experiment from a well known ethicist, Philippa Foot.

The trolley in question is the American word for a tram or railway carriage. Imagine an unmanned carriage is hurtling down a track towards five people stuck on the rails, unable to move. You notice that there is a set of points with a lever — if you pull the lever the carriage will be diverted onto a side track where there is one single person stuck on the rails. If you do nothing five people will die, but it will not be your fault. If you pull the lever only one person will die, but you will have killed them. Should you pull the lever?

In case you’re wondering, there isn’t a ‘right’ answer. The trolley problem is a way into discussing how much value we put on normal rules and duties, or how far we are prepared to discount them to respond to a greater need. Once the number to be saved starts to climb above three most people say they would pull the lever.

But now, suddenly, the trolley problem has wheels.

DEADLY DELAY

On 2 December 2020 the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) granted emergency authorisation for use of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. My own local vaccine centre announced that it would start vaccinating patients in mid-December, aiming to protect hundreds of patients daily.

But on 9 December the MHRA introduced the requirement that patients should wait, socially distanced, for 15 minutes following vaccination.1

If you plan to have a throughput of 120 patients an hour then space will not allow for this in most community healthcare facilities. So our local immunisations never started, along with much of the nation. The reason for the change is that two patients had serious and potentially life-threatening allergic reactions to the vaccine.2 Fortunately neither died. However this was predictable. Both had histories of serious allergic reactions and both carried adrenaline auto-injectors. Actually, early experience was reassuring — most severe immediate reactions can be anticipated. Special clinics could be run for those with such histories, leaving the rest of the population to be vaccinated quickly after informed consent.

Figure1

David Misselbrook

Locally we are hoping that full scale vaccination will restart in mid-January. But as I write, 2986 people in the UK died from COVID-19 in the last week for which there are official figures.3 It is hard to know how much delay to COVID-19 vaccination there has been across the UK due to the MHRA ruling. But with almost 3000 people dying per week, any delay is bad news. So do we not care if the odd handful of people die from anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination? No, of course we do. However it seems perverse to care so much less about 3000 people dying each week when their protection could have been expedited. Of course, safety risks to COVID-19 vaccination might increase the number of people refusing vaccination, delaying herd immunity. But this is balanced by the risk that delay in the vaccination programme could mean a surge in cases that overwhelms the NHS’s ability to give effective care — our worst nightmare, where those who have the potential to be saved die in hospital corridors from lack of available care. The unthinkable trolley problem.

Surely any reasonable balance of risk would mean adding two extra screening questions to the original COVID-19 vaccination arrangements; any history of serious allergy or any history of needing adrenaline auto-injectors? If negative then go ahead with rapid throughput clinics with normal medical backup for those who consent.

Why does the MHRA appear to put less value on the lives of those dying every day from vaccine delay, who may be in their hundreds, than the hypothetical possibility of a very small handful dying from anaphylaxis?

Perhaps the immediate reason is shown in the trolley problem itself. The MHRA will have been following its standard operating procedures. It is easier to restrict one’s gaze to the normal duty — the highest level of individual safety. That is the MHRA’s job. The thousands who may well die from delay will not be seen as the MHRA’s fault. And there are the lawyers circling each of us in our 21st century US-lite society. Who would want to pull the lever?

But when ‘standard operating procedures’ no longer serve the public good they are not fit for purpose. In this instance, insisting on the highest standard of safety is dangerous to us all.

Footnotes

  • This article was first posted on BJGP Life on 5 January 2021: https://bjgplife.com/trolley

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2021

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
    (2020) Confirmation of guidance to vaccination centres on managing allergic reactions following COVID-19 vaccination with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/confirmation-of-guidance-to-vaccination-centres-on-managing-allergic-reactions-following-covid-19-vaccination-with-the-pfizer-biontech-vaccine (accessed 12 Jan 2021).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Triggle N,
    2. Schraer R
    (Dec 9, 2020) Covid-19 vaccine: allergy warning over new jab. BBC News, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (accessed 12 Jan 2021).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Office for National Statistics
    (2020) Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional: week ending 18 December 2020, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsregisteredweeklyinenglandandwalesprovisional/weekending18december2020 (accessed 12 Jan 2021).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 71 (703)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 71, Issue 703
February 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The trolley problem, 2021 style
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The trolley problem, 2021 style
David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (703): 75. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp21X714773

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The trolley problem, 2021 style
David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (703): 75. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp21X714773
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • DEADLY DELAY
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Depreciating assets: the female experience of health in the UK
  • Yonder: Autism, home visits, suicidal ideation, and young sudden cardiac death
  • Bullying during COVID-19: the impact on child and adolescent health
Show more Life & Times

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242