One of the factors considered most important by dying patients and their families is the opportunity to be together. For many of our hospitalized patients in palliative care, the presence of loved ones at the bedside is such a given that we don’t even address it explicitly in advance care planning discussions. So, it comes as no surprise that Covid- 19-related visitor restrictions affecting hospitalized patients might impact end-of-life decision-making, potentially in ways that are ethically problematic.

Older black Americans are half as likely as older whites to have advanced directives. My patient, a black man in his 70s,, first made his wishes known when he was in the hospital with Covid-19.

I helped develop guidelines for the ethical allocation of scarce resources during a public health emergency, such as a pandemic..I hope my contributions have an impact. I especially hope to see my work used since it emphasizes the perspectives of minority and underserved communities, who tend to have less voice in health policy. But now I find myself dreading the use of my work.

Tinslee Lewis, a critically ill 1-year-old girl born with a rare heart defect and severe lung disease, has spent her entire life in the intensive care unit at Cook Children’s Hospital in Texas and undergone multiple surgeries in attempts to save her life. Tinslee’s care team has determined that she has no chance for any meaningful survival and that ongoing intensive care is harmful and causing her undue suffering. They recommend withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, against the parent’s wishes. Tinslee’s fate is being debated in court.

To address recent lawsuits that question whether the persistent of hormonal functions is consistent with death by neurologic criteria (such as the case of Jahi McMath), we proposed specific mention in a UDDA that loss of hormonal functions is not required for declaration of death by neurologic criteria.

As debates continue about the decisions people make about how to die, I wish to draw wider attention to the death of Paul Drier. There was little extraordinary about his death. He was a widower, had suffered from multiple health problems, and had been on kidney dialysis for 18 months. Considered to be too ill to qualify for a transplant, he decided to end dialysis. Two aspects of Mr. Drier’s death seem worth putting on record for bioethicists to remember.

An essay for Bioethics Forum earlier this month concludes that medical aid in dying is not a human right. But we should have a right to decide what suffering we are willing to endure and receive medical assistance necessary to avoid the suffering we want to avoid.

A New York Times special report on euthanasia of a Paralympics champion in Belgium was ethically problematic for several reasons.