Tag: review

Bioethics News

9 Health Reform Lies Congress Members Are Telling Their Constituents

The takeaway from a review by ProPublica and its partners at Kaiser Health News, Stat, and Vox of more than 200 letters that members of Congress sent out to their constituents in response to the public’s questions and concerns about the Affordable Care Act and its proposed replacement, the GOP’s American Health Care Act

Source: Bioethics Bulletin by the Berman Institute of Bioethics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics News

Gender Bias Distorts Peer Review Across Fields

In many scientific fields, women publish fewer papers than men, are less likely to be listed as first authors and are less likely to receive glowing letters of recommendation from their advisers. These disparities have decreased over time, but they persist. Now, a study finds that some journal editors might be inadvertently taking gender into account when selecting reviewers for papers.

Source: Bioethics Bulletin by the Berman Institute of Bioethics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Housing Equity Week in Review

Here’s the latest news in housing equity and law, from March 13-20, 2017: Inspired by Matthew Desmond’s award winning book, “Evicted,” the Reinvestment Fund published research mapping eviction rates in Philadelphia. Now, the pressure on the city to act on … Continue reading

Source: Bill of Health, examining the intersection of law and health care, biotech & bioethics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Pornography as a Public Health Issue

Jacqueline Gahagan advocates for a national sexual health promotion strategy.

__________________________________________

Pornography is concerned with the development and the circulation of sexually explicit books, magazines, videos, art, and music aimed at creating sexual excitement. Public health is concerned with keeping people healthy and preventing illness, injury and premature death. With the growing use of internet-based pornography and the relative ease by which it can be accessed, the effects of “online violent and degrading sexually explicit material on children, women and men” have become an important public health issue. This issue is best addressed through the development and introduction of a national sexual health promotion strategy – a strategy that includes current and comprehensive sexual health education in our primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools.

Health promotion, in concert with public health, involves encouraging safe behaviours and improving health through healthy public policy, community-based interventions, active public participation, advocacy, and action on key determinants of health. I am confident that several of these strategies can be used to address concerns about the ready access to internet-based pornography. For example, health promotion initiatives that take a harm reduction approach to healthy sexuality include an emphasis on screening and testing for sexually transmitted infections, the use of condoms, a shared understanding of consensual sex, as well as the use of other safer sex interventions.

A review of existing sexual health education in Canadian schools, however, reveals that many Canadian youth do not receive the level of sexual health education they need to help them make informed decisions about sexual risk-taking.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Drop the Kleenex and Put Your Hands Up

February 09, 2017

by Sean Philpott-Jones, Chair, Bioethics Program of Clarkson University & Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Drop the Kleenex and Put Your Hands Up

For the past week, mainstream, alternative, and social media outlets here in the United States and abroad have been consumed with discussion and debate about the legality and morality of President Trump’s recent travel ban. However, the so-called Muslim travel ban is not the only set of potentially controversial restrictions put into place recently.

Unbeknownst to most, the federal government is also planning to expand greatly the power of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to detain people who are suspected of carrying a dangerous communicable illness. Also known as quarantine – a term that comes from the Italian word for forty, in honor of the practice in Early Renaissance Venice to make trading vessels remain anchored offshore for 40 days before entering the port – the detention, isolation and even forcible treatment of those potentially exposed to a infectious disease like tuberculosis or Ebola is one of the most powerful and one of the most contentious tools in the public health arsenal.

The authority of local, state, and federal officials to do this comes from the parens patriae powers of the state. Latin for “parent of the nation, parens patriae refers to the legal doctrine that the government has a responsibility to protect those who cannot care for themselves. This includes, for example, the power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Losing Parties at Ontario CCB Retaliate through Medical Board Complaints

A few days ago, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board affirmed a decision of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario not to take action against a physician.  


I was pleased to see this result, because the complaint concerned actions of the physician that were taken in accord with an earlier decision of the Consent & Capacity Board. 


In short, the physician was acting in accord with the patient’s advance directive.  The daughter  and POA was not.  The physician took the case to the CCB.  The CCB ruled that the daughter POA had not complied with principles of substitute decision making and directed her to comply with the physician’s plan of treatment.


Apparently, the daughter was displeased with the CCB decision and filed a complaint against the physician with the College (the medical board).  While the results from the College and the Appeals Board seem rights, I was distressed that this physician had to defend herself through two levels of tribunals on this.

Source: bioethics.net, a blog maintained by the editorial staff of The American Journal of Bioethics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

How private should genetic information be?

One of the issues regarding genetic testing is the privacy of that information. It has been recognized for some time that employers and others could use genetic information in ways that would cause problems for those whose genetic information they were able to access. Because of that the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibit employers from asking employees to have genetic testing done. According to a recent article in the National Law Review, there is a bill currently in Congress, HR 1313 that would exempt employers from the restrictions of the GINA and ADA if the testing is being done as part of a workplace wellness program. Employers would be able to require employees to have genetic testing done as a part of the program and employees who refused would be subject to a significant increase in their health insurance premiums.

I think there are significant moral concerns about this change. Privacy regarding medicine information and genetic information in particular is important. People should be able to choose who they allow to have that information and they should be able to choose whether they want to undergo genetic testing. There are situations in which people would prefer not to know some things. There are limits to privacy and when another person is act risk of harm. Privacy may be less important than preventing harm to that person. However, workplace wellness programs which may be well meaning and may provide some benefit to the employees are being done as much for the benefit of the employer to try to lower health care costs as they are for the employees.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

De-stigmatization of the disgraceful mark of stigma in the opioid crisis

 

After attending Albany Government
Law Review’s symposium,
Script to Street: Opioids
and the Law in the Capital District

this past Thursday, there was several issues addressed but the one overarching
concern was about the role of stigma in this opioid crisis. Many different
types of stigma were identified and the different ways our negative judgments
have impacted society. As one speaker during the first panel discussion stated,
addiction is not a new problem. He described one historic painting that showed
different reactions of society to addiction: disgust, numbness, shock, or
simply ignoring the problem. All of these reactions illustrate stigma and shows
how despite all our social advancements, we still have not eliminated (or destigmatized)
stigma of the addiction problem.
 

 Some definitions of stigma
include a
mark of disgrace, society disapproval of something, or a negative set of beliefs society has about something. 
All definitions include this
perceived negativity and describe stigma as bad. Stigma is not something one
like to face and usually, a judgment one tends to try avoiding.
 

 The issue with stigma our
current opioid crisis is that it is not just one type of stigma, it is layers
of stigma on top of one another. There is the stigma of being a drug user and
the stereotypes of who is a drug user (the poor, African American, Hispanic).
 Drug-users are
perceived to be “bad” people who only care about drugs.  This perception becomes a barrier to
treatment as individuals do not want to seek treatment in fears they will be
labeled as a drug user, even if these individuals are suffering from chronic
pain.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Housing Equity Week in Review

It was a national and international first week of March in housing equity and law. Here are some of the big stories from the field March 6-12, 2017: On the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised to cut domestic spending. Now … Continue reading

Source: Bill of Health, examining the intersection of law and health care, biotech & bioethics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.

Bioethics Blogs

Manufacturers Of Biosimilar Drugs Sit Out The ‘Patent Dance’

This new post by Claire Laporte appears on the Health Affairs Blog in a series stemming from the Fifth Annual Health Law Year in P/Review event held at Harvard Law School on Monday, January 23, 2017. Believe it or not, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, or here, … Continue reading

Source: Bill of Health, examining the intersection of law and health care, biotech & bioethics.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.