DOCSLIB.ORG

COALITION for RACIAL EQUITY and SOCIAL JUSTICE Visit Us At

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COALITION for RACIAL EQUITY and SOCIAL JUSTICE Visit Us At COALITION FOR RACIAL EQUITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE Visit us at http//coalition4justice.com DONATE • America’s Long-standing Inequities in Health and Health Care Exposed ❖HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE EQUITY DEFINED: o The American Public Health Association – defines “Health Equity” as everyone having the opportunity to attain their highest level of WHAT IS health. o The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – states that HEALTH AND health equity is achieved when every person has the opportunity to “attain his or her full health potential“ and no one is “disadvantaged from achieving this potential because of social position or other HEALTH socially determined circumstances.” o Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWF) says “Health equity means CARE that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be healthier. This requires removing obstacles to health such as poverty, discrimination, and their consequences, including powerlessness and EQUITY? lack of access to good jobs, quality education and housing, safe environments and health care.” o (Institute of Medicine (IOM) – “Providing care to everyone that does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as Gender, Ethnicity, Geography, and Socioeconomic status.” • Everyone having opportunity to attain What is ➢Quality health Common ➢Full health Among the ➢Highest level of health • No one is disadvantaged because of – Definitions? ➢Discrimination ➢ Poverty ➢ Powerlessness ➢Personal Characteristics HEALTH AND • Giving Every Person the Quality of Health Care HEALTH • They need, and CARE EQUITY MEANS • When they need it WHAT ARE THE UNDERLYING DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH • ??????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????? DISPARITIES? Health and Health Care Disparities • Viewed typically from the lens of Race and Ethnicity • Other ways to look at health and healthcare disparities: ❖Socio-economics status ❖Age ❖Location ❖Gender ❖Disability status ❖Sexual Orientation UNDERLYING • Racism and ❖Recreation Discrimination ❖Transportation DETERMINANTS ❖Poverty ❖Social Gradient ❖ OF HEALTH Lack of or unequal ❖Work Environment DISPARITIES? access ❖ ❖Social Exclusion and Education Isolation ❖Unemployment ❖Stress ❖ Income Stability ❖Stigma ❖ Housing ❖Lifestyle ❖Food Insecurity ❖Distrust of Health Care ❖Nutrition and Medical System ❖Environmental Hazards Are the underlying social determinants of health Underlying Social determinants FAIR? of Health AVOIDABLE? • Why are People of Color Distrustful DISTRUST IN of the US Healthcare System? THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE • ??????????????????????????????? AND MEDICAL ???????????????????????????? SYSTEM • Generational Scar from Lived Personal Experiences of People of Color Black and ➢Three Major Studies in US: 1. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study in Alabama (1912- Brown 1972) Americans ✓6oo blacks recruited for study, Lack Trust in ✓399 had contracted Syphilis, and the Health Care System ✓201 did not have the disease. • Study Goal – To see the history and progression Tuskegee of syphilis Syphilis ❖Penicillin approved for treatment of syphilis Study, 1912- ❖Patients not treated for cure of the disease 1972 ❖Patients given placebos – aspirin and mineral supplements Tuskegee Syphilis Study Some Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment Patients Tuskegee Syphilis Patients Being Vaccinated Tuskegee Syphilis Patient Being Injected with the Disease Tuskegee Syphilis Study Tuskegee Syphilis Study Impact • 128 Participants dead by 1972 • 40 plus study souses contracted syphilis • 19 children of study participants born with syphilis Tuskegee Syphilis Study • Unethical Tuskegee Syphilis Study used in – ✓Medical in United States Journals ✓To teach medical students ✓July 1972 Study leaked in national media ✓Study shut down ✓Study doctors sued for criminal misconduct not convicted • 1973 - US Government Congressional Hearing on Tuskegee Study Tuskegee • Class Action lawsuit – Settled out of court with federal government and study patients Syphilis and deceased patient families Study • $10,000 million paid as compensation to heirs and survivors of study patients. • Born Loretta Pleasant on August 1, 1920 Roanoke, Virginia to Eliza and Johnny Pleasant • Diagnosed with aggressive cancerous cell in 1951 • Hospitalized and treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Baltimore, MD • Lacks died of aggressive cervical cancer at age 31 2. Lacks Cell Study years in 1951 Henrietta Lacks, 1920-1951 Aggressive Cancerous Cells Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD • People of color (Black, Brown and Indigenous People) were refused treatment in most hospitals in US • Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland was one of very few hospitals that treated POC ➢Henrietta Lacks Cell Study at Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore, MD ➢Unauthorized and unethical use of Lack’s cancerous cells by her doctors and other Black and researchers while under treatment and after her death. Brown ✓Her Cancer cells taken and passed around in medical community for research without her Americans knowledge and consent Lack Trust in ✓Lacks’ cell shared widely by Johns Hopkins researchers with other scientists US Health ✓Her medical record released to media and her Care System cells’ gnome published online Unethical Henrietta Lacks Cell Study Henrietta Lacks Immortal (hela) Cells Henrietta Lacks Cell Study • Henrietta Lacks immortalized cells – a fixture in US medical research community and globally for decades • Her cell line – extraordinary capacity to survive and reproduce maternally • Hela Cells – used for vaccines development: • Polio vaccine • HIV • Herpes • Parkinson’s disease • COVID-19, and • Many Others Henrietta Lacks Legacy to the World • Scientists around the world use the immortal Hela cells for medical discoveries and treatment oof diseases. • Hela cells used by a German virologist to prove that the human papillomavirus (HPV) causes cancer Books on Henrietta Lacks Black and • 3. Guatemala Study (1946-1948) Brown ➢700 men and women intentionally Americans injected with syphilis Lack Trust in ➢ the Health These people did not contract syphilis Care System ➢Study researchers wanted to determine whether penicillin could prevent syphilis ➢Researchers also used prostitutes also for the syphilis experiment Clinton on the Guatemala Study US Sponsored Unethical Study US Sponsored Unethical Study • People in Guatemala lined up to be injected with syphilis vaccine • Dark Chapters in the History of US Sponsored Medicine in the US Unethical ➢Syphilis – a major health issue in the US in 1920s ➢Researchers wanted to know the natural history Studies or progression of the disease ➢Studies Methodology – Unethical ➢Study participants were - ✓ denied of treatment ✓ denied information ✓ NO Patient consent obtained for study ✓ tricked and used as guinea pigs US Sponsored Unethical Studies • Any Wonder that People of Color are Distrustful of US Government When it Comes to Vaccines? ➢ Decades of Generational Scar of black and Brown Communities ➢ 1973: study Congressional Hearings on Study Ethics- o 37 Years after Tuskegee Study o 25 Years after Guatemala Study, and o 22 Years after Lacks Study ✓ Presidents Clinton and Obama and Hilary Clinton apologized for US involvement in unethical Studies ✓ Class action lawsuit – settled out of court with US government ✓ $10,000 paid to heirs/survivors of Study participants ✓ No conviction for doctors and researched involved in the unethical studies Hilary Clinton Apologies for US and Medical Community Mistreatment of People of Color WHY DO HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE • ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? EQUITY ??? MATTER ? • ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??? • ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??? HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE EQUITY MATTER • Health and wellbeing of the population is the foundation of vibrant communities and society ❖Healthy Equity matters from an equity, social justice and civil rights standpoint ❖Inequity does NOT affect only the group facing disparities ❖Health disparities have spillover effects on the rest of society ❖Reduces social cohesion and leads to stress, fear and insecurity ❖Limits overall gains in quality care and health of the broader population. ❖Results in significant unnecessary costs, not only to the individuals but also to society. ❖Improves health and the quality of care more broadly to achieve overall population health. CHALLENGES IN ADDRESSING HEALTH • WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES? AND HEATHCARE DISPARIITIES • HOW CAN WE REDUCE HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE DISPARITIES? • Affordable Health Care – ✓ Not Perfect ✓ Needs Improvement ❖Roll back in health insurance coverage Decline in Gains ❖Efforts to overturn ACA Made with the ❖Decreased funds for outreach and enrollment assistance Affordable Care Act ❖Adding restrictions to Medicaid such as eligibility (ACA) verification requirements to Medicaid ❖Allowing states to cap federal funding for Medicaid ❖Decreased funding for Prevention and Public Health Care Reducing or Eliminating Health and What Needs to Happen to Overcome Healthcare Challenges and Reduce or Eliminate Health Disparities and Health Care Disparities? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????? Addressing Health and Healthcare Disparities • Integrate Health Equity considerations into policies and programs • Policy makers Response to health and healthcare inequity issues – Critical ❖ Goal of Health and Human Services (HHS) Initiative (2016): ➢ To Advance Health and Health Care Equity ➢ Expand Access and Quality of Coverage and Care ➢ Promote and Provide Whole Person Care ➢ Strengthen Healthcare Infrastructure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Henrietta Lacks Enhancing Cancer Research Act of 2019
    G:\COMP\116\HENRIETTA LACKS ENHANCING CANCER RESEARCH ACT....XML Henrietta Lacks Enhancing Cancer Research Act of 2019 [Public Law 116–291] [This law has not been amended] øCurrency: This publication is a compilation of the text of Public Law 116–291. It was last amended by the public law listed in the As Amended Through note above and below at the bottom of each page of the pdf version and reflects current law through the date of the enactment of the public law listed at https:// www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/comps/¿ øNote: While this publication does not represent an official version of any Federal statute, substantial efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of its contents. The official version of Federal law is found in the United States Statutes at Large and in the United States Code. The legal effect to be given to the Statutes at Large and the United States Code is established by statute (1 U.S.C. 112, 204).¿ AN ACT To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to complete a study on barriers to participation in federally funded cancer clinical trials by popu- lations that have been traditionally underrepresented in such trials. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Henrietta Lacks Enhancing Can- cer Research Act of 2019’’. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress finds as follows: (1) Only a small percent of patients participate in cancer clinical trials, even though most express an interest in clinical research.
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Consent and Shared Decision Making in EBM
    3 Informed Consent and shared decision making in EBM 3.1 ‘Informed consent’ in regular medical practice ‘Consent’ as it is understood in the medical context has to be asked from the pa- tient and is the explicit agreement to waive a right to certain rules and norms which are normally expected in the treatment of other people and of ourselves as patients. Every surgical procedure would, without consent from the patient, be legally un- derstood as assault and battery and the physician could be prosecuted for perform- ing it. ‘Informed consent’ therefore in its most simple form means that the patient has received a good explanation about a medical procedure, understands what is happening to him or her and then can make an informed choice to accept or refuse, in the latter case the so called ‘informed refusal.167 In order to give ‘informed con- sent the patient has to be capable of understanding the information given by the physician. He or she must be competent to decide and to give consent voluntarily without being coerced by any means into giving consent.168 ‘Autonomy’ of the patient, hereby equated with ‘person’ plays the overarching role in ‘informed con- sent.’ A competent person who exercises autonomy will have the final say about their own life. ‘Autonomy’ itself is a contested term in the philosophy of science and interpretations therefore vary. According to Dworkin, “Liberty (positive or negative) ... dignity, integrity, individuality, independence, responsibility and self knowledge ... self assertion ... critical reflection ... freedom from obligation ... ab- sence of external causation ... and knowledge of one’s own interests.”169 all fall under the definition of autonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation Abstracts
    Eighth Annual Western Michigan University Medical Humanities Conference Conference Abstracts Hosted by the WMU Medical Humanities Workgroup and the Program in Medical Ethics, Humanities, and Law, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine September 13-14, 2018 Our Sponsors: Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, WMU Center for the Study of Ethics in Society, WMU Department of Philosophy Ethics After Error: Malpractice, Mistrust, and the Limits of Medical Moral Repair Ben Almassi, PhD Division of Arts & Letters Governors State University Abstract: One limitation of medical ethics modelled on ideal moral theory is its relative silence on the aftermath of medical error – that is, not just on the recognition and avoidance of injustice, wrongdoing, or other such failures of medical ethics, but how to respond given medical injustice or wrongdoing. Ideally, we would never do each other wrong; but given that inevitably we do, as fallible and imperfect agents we require non-ideal ethical guidance. For such non-ideal moral contexts, I suggest, Margaret Walker’s account of moral repair and reparative justice presents powerful hermeneutical and practical tools toward understanding and enacting what is needed to restore moral relationships and moral standing in the aftermath of injustice or wrongdoing, tools that might be usefully extended to medical ethics and error specifically. Where retributive justice aims to make injured parties whole and retributive justice aims to mete out punishment, reparative justice “involves the restoration or reconstruction of confidence, trust, and hope in the reality of shared moral standards and of our reliability in meeting and enforcing them.” Medical moral repair is not without its challenges, however, in both theory and practice: standard ways of holding medical professionals and institutions responsible for medical error and malpractice function retributively and/or restitutively, either giving benign inattention to patient-practitioner relational repair or impeding it.
    [Show full text]
  • Tuskegee and the Health of Black Men
    Tuskegee and the Health of Black Men Marcella Alsan and Marianne Wanamaker April 2016 PRELIMINARY. COMMENTS WELCOME. Abstract JEL Codes: I25, O15 For forty years, the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male passively monitored hundreds of adult black males with syphilis despite the availability of effective treatment. The study’s methods have become synonymous with exploitation and mistreatment by the medical community. We find that the historical disclosure of the study in 1972 is correlated with in- creases in medical mistrust and mortality and decreases in outpatient physician interactions for black men. Blacks possessing prior experience with the medical community, including veterans and women, appear to have been less affected by the disclosure. Our findings relate to a broader literature on how be- liefs are formed and the importance of trust for economic exchanges involving asymmetric information. We are grateful to William Collins, Joe Ferrie, Nathan Nunn, John Parman, Achyuta Adhvaryu, Arun Chandrasekhar, Martha Bailey, Rebecca Diamond, Claudia Goldin, Melanie Morten, Mark Duggan, Mark Cullen, Melissa Dell, Nancy Qian, Ran Abramitzky, Pascaline Dupas, Rema Hanna, Grant Miller and participants at NBER DAE, University of Tennessee, Vander- bilt Health Policy, Carnegie Mellon Applied Microeconomics, University of Copenhagen Economics, University of Pennsylvania Health Policy, ASSA 2016 Berkeley Population Center, University of Chicago Harris and Stanford Health Policy for constructive comments. We thank the CDC for providing access and to the administrators at the Atlanta and Stanford Census Research Data Centers for their help in navigating the restricted data. We thank Michael Sinkinson, Martha Bailey, Andrew Goodman-Bacon and Walker Hanlon for sharing data and methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Hela's Ancestors
    HELA’S ANCESTORS Teaching about Race and Science A guide to teaching with Rebecca Skloot’s The Immoral Life of Henrietta Lacks Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur Rhode Island College Department of Sociology [email protected] Rebecca Skloot’s masterpiece of science writing, The Immoral Life of Henrietta Lacks (2009), tells the story of how American science developed the ability to culture and grow cell lines in science laboratories—and how this development is intimately tied to the story of one woman, her family, and their unfortunate experiences with racial and health care inequality in the United States. My goal in this Teaching Guide is to explore some of the ways in which Henrietta Lacks’s story emerges from a larger history in which people of color have been mistreated by the scientific establishment in so very many ways. While Skloot alludes to some of these issues, her book is better understood as a biography of the HeLa cell line—and thus, it is up to those of us who use the book in our classrooms to ensure that we teach the book not only as the story of one poor woman and her family’s suffering or as the story of the casualties of scientific progress but instead as a chronicle of one incident in a litany of incidents that make up the history of racial science in our nation. While there are many ways to approach these topics, this teaching guide will focus on three particular aspects of the history of race and science of relevance for teaching and learning in the context of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks: (1) race, ethics, and experimentation in relation to the development of protections for human subjects in research; (2) the history of attempts to “scientize” racial inequality; and (3) race-based medical practice.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Case: 13-36217, 03/14/2016, ID: 9899915, DktEntry: 34-1, Page 1 of 33 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GEORGE O. MITCHELL, No. 13-36217 Plaintiff-Appellant, DC No. v. 3:12 cv-05403 BHS STATE OF WASHINGTON; KELLY CUNNINGHAM, SCC Superintendent; DR. THOMAS BELL, OPINION Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 6, 2015—Pasadena, California Filed March 14, 2016 Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, A. Wallace Tashima, and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Tashima; Concurrence by Judge Clifton Case: 13-36217, 03/14/2016, ID: 9899915, DktEntry: 34-1, Page 2 of 33 2 MITCHELL V. STATE OF WASHINGTON SUMMARY* Prisoner Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff, who is civilly committed as a sexually violent predator, alleged that defendants’ refusal to treat his Hepatitis C with interferon and ribavirin violated his right to reasonable medical care and that the consideration of race in the denial of this treatment violated the Equal Protection Clause. The panel first held the district court erred by finding that the damages claims against the state defendants were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The panel held that even though plaintiff testified in his deposition that he was suing defendants only in their official capacities, his amended complaint clearly stated that he was suing defendants in both their official and personal capacities for damages and injunctive relief and the record demonstrated that plaintiff, acting pro se, did not understand the legal significance of bringing claims against defendants in their official versus personal capacities.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Research Straight Talk
    Clinical Research: Straight Talk about When Expectations Meet Reality Reina Hibbert, CCRC Regulatory Manager Phase 1 & RCC/Melanoma Clinical Trials Agenda Fundamentals ► The scientific method ► Phases of trials ► Basic evolution of trial structure ► History: Errors, Corrections and Successes Critical skills Identifying pressures The business of clinical research vs. the goals and outcomes Permission or forgiveness: how do you decide? Errors: embracing the chaos to find the opportunities Public perception The far-reaching effects of research outcomes 2 Fundamentals – The Scientific Method 3 Fundamentals – The Phases of Trials Approval Phases 2, 3 (and sometimes 4) Pilot and Phase 1 Pre-Clinical 4 Fundamentals – A History Lesson 5 Fundamentals - Historical Errors Ojanuga, D. (1993). The medical ethics of the'father of gynaecology', Dr J Marion Sims. Journal of medical ethics, 19(1), 28-31. 6 Fundamentals – Historical Errors 7 Brandt, A. M. (1978). Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Hastings center report, 8(6), 21-29. Fundamentals – Historical Errors 8 Spector-Bagdady, K., & Lombardo, P. A. (2013). “Something of an adventure”: postwar NIH research ethos and the Guatemala STD experiments. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(3), 697-710. Fundamentals – Historical Errors Williams, P., & Wallace, D. (1989). Unit 731: Japan's secret biological 9 warfare in World War II (pp. 178-179). New York: Free Press. Fundamentals – Historical Errors 10 Annas, G. J., & Grodin, M. A. (1992). The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg Code Human rights in human experimentation. Fundamentals – Historical Errors 11 Marks, J. (1979). The search for the" Manchurian candidate": The CIA and mind control (pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Tuskegee Mixer Materials
    Tuskegee Syphilis Study Mixer By Gretchen Kraig-Turner (with additions and revisions by Linda Christensen) Questions: 1. Find someone who supported the study. Who is it? Why did this person support the study? 2. Find someone who was hurt by the Tuskegee Study. Who is it? How was this person hurt? 3. Find someone who took action about the Tuskegee Study. Who is it? What did the person do? 4. Find someone who benefited from the Tuskegee Study. Who is it? How did this person benefit? 5. Find a doctor who was connected to the Tuskegee Study. Who is it? What was his connection to the study? 6. Find someone who was troubled by the Tuskegee Study. Who is it? What troubled this person? 7. Find someone who had to make a choice about their role in the study. Who was it? What choice did the person have to make? Jean Heller: After receiving a tip from whistleblower Peter Buxtun, who worked as an interviewer for the Public Health Service, Associated Press asked me to investigate Buxtun’s claims about an unethical medical study focused on African American men with syphilis. Although I wrote the story that eventually stopped the study, Peter Buxtun was the one who uncovered the story and investigated what he believed was an immoral study. On July 25, 1972, the Washington Evening Star newspaper ran my article on its front page: "Syphilis Patients Died Untreated." I wrote: For 40 years, the U.S. Public Health Service has conducted a study in which human guinea pigs, not given proper treatment, have died of syphilis and its side effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Read the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks Our Common Read
    Common Read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks Our common read book has inter-disciplinary value/relevance, covering social and biological sciences as well as humanities and education including scientific/medical ethics, nursing, biology, genetics, psychology, sociology, communication, business, criminal justice, history, deaf studies and social justice. Below are chapter summaries that focus on the above disciplines to give respective faculty ideas about how the book can be used for their courses. Part One: Life 1. The Exam….1951: A medical visit at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, the “northern most Southern city.” Although Johns Hopkins is established as an indigent hospital, Jim Crow era policies/ideologies are pervasive in the care/treatment of black patients. 2. Clover…1920-1942: Birthplace of Henrietta and several of the Lacks family members, including Day, Henrietta’s cousin, husband, and father of her children. A “day in the life” snapshot of life and work in this rural agricultural small town with distinct social/economic divisions across race and socioeconomic status. 3. Diagnosis and Treatment…1951: Henrietta’s diagnosis of cervical carcinomas with a history/statistical profile of diagnostic techniques and prevailing treatment regime of the time. Henrietta’s statement of consent to operative procedures is given along with removal of cancerous tissue and subsequent radium insertion into her cervix. 4. The Birth of HeLa…1951: In depth discussion of the Johns Hopkins lab including the development of an appropriate medium to grow cells. HeLa cells, the first immortal line, are born in this meticulously sterilized lab by the Geys. 5. “Blackness Be Spreadin All Inside”…1951: A look back at the lively, fun loving youthful Henrietta compared to some of the heartache of the birth of Henrietta’s second daughter, Elsie, who was born “special” (epileptic, deaf, and unable to speak).
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Ethics Christopher Newport University, Spring 2020
    Medical Ethics Christopher Newport University, Spring 2020 Meeting Info Dr. Chris Tweedt Philosophy 384, Sec. 1 202 McMurran Hall TR 7:30{8:45 pm [email protected] 357 McMurran Hall Office Hours Tuesday & Thursday 2{4 pm Textbook Bioethics: Principles, Issues, and Cases, 3rd ed. by Lewis Vaughn. Outcomes The purpose of this class is to help you 1. clearly and informedly think through ethical decisions, 2. gain an understanding of the arguments and viewpoints relevant to central medical ethics debates 3. learn to discuss polarizing issues in a charitable and respectful manner, especially in the presence of strong disagreement, and 4. develop the ability to charitably and accurately interpret, summarize, and critique philosophical arguments in the context of medical ethics. Overview Medical decisions have consequences|health-related consequences, financial conse- quences, legal consequences, and, most relevant to this course, ethical consequences. When you enter the medical field, you will be faced with difficult ethical decisions. In this course, you will learn how to make these decisions and make them well. The topics of this course are focused on issues that arise in health care professionals real- world practice. This course will present a variety of views on each topic in order to help students understand and articulate their reasons for their positions. The course is divided into three sections. 1. First, we will develop a framework for making ethical decisions. We will address these questions: Why do we treat people, and when do we know when to stop? Which principles should guide our interaction with patients and provision of treat- ment? How should we make decisions when our moral principles conflict? How do we make decisions that we know have a bad effect? How should we deal with mistakes weve made? 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Ethics
    Medical Ethics Janyne Althaus, M.D., M.A. Dept. Gyn-Ob Div. Maternal-Fetal Medicine Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Hippocratic Oath 12th-century Byzantine manuscript of the Oath Late 5th Century B.C. Basic Principles of Medical Ethics 1. Non-maleficence 2. Beneficence 3. Autonomy 4. Justice Primum non nocere Bloodletting High Oxygen for respiratory distress in premature infants Healing should be the sole purpose of medicine, and that endeavors like cosmetic surgery, contraception & euthanasia fall beyond its purview. Jehovah’s Witnesses Primary Elective Cesareans Cosmetic Gynecology Counseling parents of 24 week fetus Neonatal Intensive Care Units Transplants Forced sterilization of mentally retarded in Virginia United States of America v. Karl Brandt, et al. A sentence of death by hanging is pronounced by a US War Crimes Tribunal upon Adolf Hitler's personal physician, 43-year old Karl Brandt. Brandt was also Reich Commissar for Health and Sanitation. Of the 23 defendants, 7 were acquitted and 7 received death sentences; 9 received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment Peter Buxtun, PHS veneral disease investigator, the “whistleblower". •Conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932-1972 •600 Rural African-American men thought they were receiving free health care from the government. •By the end of the study in 1972, only 74 of the test subjects were alive. Of the original 399 men with syphilis, 28 had died of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected and 19 of their children were born with congenital syphilis.
    [Show full text]
  • American Medical Association Journal of Ethics March 2016, Volume 18, Number 3: 264-271
    American Medical Association Journal of Ethics March 2016, Volume 18, Number 3: 264-271 POLICY FORUM Shedding Privacy Along with our Genetic Material: What Constitutes Adequate Legal Protection against Surreptitious Genetic Testing? Nicolle K. Strand, JD, MBioethics We leave our genetic material everywhere we go. Our DNA—the building blocks of what makes us who we are, from our physical appearance, to our intelligence, to our susceptibility to stigmatized illnesses—is left behind in the hairs that fall off of our heads on the subway, the saliva we leave on the rim of a coffee cup, and the cigarette butt or chewing gum we discard on the street. Ten years ago, leaving behind DNA was of virtually no consequence—it would have been very difficult to isolate it, analyze it, and learn anything significant from it. Back then, the only people able to analyze DNA were scientists with access to laboratories and expensive equipment. Today, that has changed: direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies make genetic analysis as easy as mailing a sample, paying $199, and waiting a few weeks to access the results online [1]. Surreptitious genetic testing happens when a sample containing a person’s genetic information is accessed without the knowledge or consent of that person and when that sample is tested without the knowledge or consent of that person. There have been some high-profile examples of concern about and perpetration of surreptitious genetic testing. An article posted online by a CNN affiliate reported that Madonna is afraid of fans stealing her DNA and thus demands her dressing rooms be wiped clean upon her departure [2].
    [Show full text]