Ethics in humanitarian efforts: when should resources be allocated to paediatric heart surgery?

Background: In countries with ample resources, no debate exists as to whether heart surgery should be provided. However, where funding is limited, what responsibility exists to care for children with congenital heart defects? If children have a "right" to surgical treatment, to whom is the "duty" to provide it assigned? These questions are subjected to ethical analysis.

Methods: Examination is initially based on the four principles of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Consideration of beneficence and justice is expanded using a consequentialist approach.

Results: Social structures, including governments, exist to foster the common good. Society, whether by means of government funding or otherwise, has the responsibility, according to the means available, to assure health care for all based on the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. In wealthy countries, adequate resources exist to fund appropriate treatment; hence it should be provided to all based on distributive justice. In resource-limited countries, however, decisions regarding provision of care for expensive or complex health problems must be made with consideration for broader effects on the general public. Preliminary data from cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that many surgical interventions, including cardiac surgery, may be resource-efficient. Given that information, utilitarian ethical analysis supports dedication of resources to congenital heart surgery in many low-income countries. In the poorest countries, where access to drinking water and basic nutrition is problematic, it will often be more appropriate to focus on these issues first.

Conclusion: Ethical analysis supports dedication of resources to congenital heart surgery in all but the poorest countries.