The purpose of this Review is to provide evidence for why gender equality in science, medicine, and global health matters for health and health-related outcomes. We present a high-level synthesis of global gender data, summarise progress towards gender equality in science, medicine, and global health, review the evidence for why gender equality in these fields matters in terms of health and social outcomes, and reflect on strategies to promote change. Notwithstanding the evolving landscape of global gender data, the overall pattern of gender equality for women in science, medicine, and global health is one of mixed gains and persistent challenges. Gender equality in science, medicine, and global health has the potential to lead to substantial health, social, and economic gains. Positioned within an evolving landscape of gender activism and evidence, our Review highlights missed and future opportunities, as well as the need to draw upon contemporary social movements to advance the field.

The Declaration of Geneva was recently revised to emphasize patient autonomy and the importance of clinicians sharing medical knowledge. This reflects the welcome evolution of the doctor-patient relationship from one of paternalism to more informed, shared decision-making. Unfortunately, there is an increasing trend for clinicians to avoid making recommendations, instead providing a "menu" of care options from which patients and families must choose. This seems to be underpinned by the belief that it is unacceptably paternalistic to give guidance as to which course of action may be best to take. In this article, we argue that there is an ethical imperative for doctors to provide medical recommendations. This is discussed with particular emphasis on the pediatric critical care setting, where autonomy and shared decision-making are especially complex. We outline how a failure to provide clinical recommendations represents inadequate shared decision-making and erodes the doctor-patient relationship, leading to suboptimal care, paradoxically decreasing respect for autonomy. We describe an approach through which doctors can avoid paternalism without placing an undue burden of decision-making on families. We assert that patients' interests are best served by clinicians taking an active, relational role in shared decision-making, including exploration of values and giving explicit medical recommendations for care.

On March, 24, 2020, 818 cases of COVID-19 had been reported in New South Wales, Australia, and new cases were increasing at an exponential rate. In anticipation of resource constraints arising in clinical settings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a working party of ten ethicists (seven clinicians and three fulltime academics) was convened at the University of Sydney to draft an ethics framework to support resource allocation decisions. The framework guides decisionmakers using a question-and-answer format, in language that avoids philosophical and medical technicality. The working party met five times over the following week and then submitted a draft Framework for consideration by two groups of intensivists and one group of academic ethicists. It was also presented to a panel on a national current affairs programme. The Framework was then revised on the basis of feedback from these sources and made publicly available online on April 3, ten days after the initial meeting. The framework is published here in full to stimulate ongoing discussion about rapid development of user-friendly clinical ethics resources in ongoing and future pandemics.

There is emerging consensus for staff competencies and service-level standards for CES. The role of CES in staff well-being needs to be explored. Collaborative, multi-modal research to develop standards and evaluate CES is needed.

Implementation of MTP resulted in earlier balanced transfusion. The difference between the FFP/PRBC ratios of the two types of resuscitations levelled by 24 h. The efficacy of component therapy delivery should be measured earlier than 24 h.

Are all children extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) candidates? Navigating ECMO decisions represents an enormous challenge in pediatric critical care. ECMO cannulation should not be a default option as it will not confer benefit for "all" critically ill children; however, "all" children deserve wellconsidered decisions surrounding their ECMO candidacy. The complexity of the decision demands a systematic, "well-reasoned" and "dynamic" approach. Due to clinical urgency, this standard cannot always be met prior to initiation of ECMO. We challenge the paradigm of "candidacy" as a singular decision that must be defined prior to ECMO initiation. Rather, the determination as to whether ECMO is in the patient's best interest is applicable regardless of cannulation status. The priority should be on collaborative, interdisciplinary decision-making processes aligned with principles of transparency, relevant reasoning, accountability, review, and appeal. To ensure a robust process, it should not be temporally constrained by cannulation status. We advocate that this approach will decrease both the risk of not initiating ECMO in a patient who will benefit and the risk of prolonged, nonbeneficial support. We conclude that to ensure fair decisions are made in a patient's best interest, organizations should develop procedurally fair processes for ECMO decision-making that are not tied to a particular time point and are revisited along the management trajectory.

Ethical climate (EC) has been broadly described as how well institutions respond to ethical issues. Developing a tool to study and evaluate EC that aims to achieve sustained improvements requires a contemporary framework with identified relevant drivers. An extensive literature review was performed, reviewing existing EC definitions, tools and areas where EC has been studied; ethical challenges and relevance of EC in contemporary paediatric intensive care (PIC); and relevant ethical theories. We surmised that existing EC definitions and tools designed to measure it fail to capture nuances of the PIC environment, and sought to address existing gaps by developing an EC framework for PIC founded on ethical theory. In this article, we propose a Paediatric Intensive Care Ethical Climate (PICEC) conceptual framework and four measurable domains to be captured by an assessment tool. We define PICEC as the collective felt experience of interdisciplinary team members arising from those factors that enable or constrain their ability to navigate ethical aspects of their work. PICEC both results from and is influenced by how well ethical issues are understood, identified, explored, reflected on, responded to and addressed in the workplace. PICEC encompasses four, core inter-related domains representing drivers of EC including: (1) organisational culture and leadership; (2) interdisciplinary team relationships and dynamics; (3) integrated child and family-centred care; and (4) ethics literacy. Future directions involve developing a PICEC measurement tool, with implications for benchmarking as well as guidance for, and evaluation of, targeted interventions to foster a healthy EC.

The global 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has led to major challenges in clinical decision making when the demand for intensive care exceeds local capacity. In order to promote consistent, transparent, objective and ethical decision making, the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) formed a committee to urgently develop guidelines outlining key principles that should be utilised during the pandemic. This guidance is intended to support the practice of intensive care specialists during the COVID-19 pandemic and to promote the development of local admission policies that should be endorsed by health care organisations and relevant local authorities.