Tag: medical ethics

Blog Posts (36)

March 10, 2017

Ethics & Society Newsfeed: March 10, 2017

Politics White House Slammed by Federal Ethics Chief for Not Disciplining Kellyanne Conway U.S. government’s official ethics watchdog blasted White House for not taking disciplinary action against senior counselor Kellyanne Conway for promoting Ivanka Trump’s products on TV Trump’s Ethics Order Seen as Boost for Shadow Lobbying President Trump’s speech to the joint session of Congress … More Ethics & Society Newsfeed: March 10, 2017
February 17, 2017

Ethics & Society Newsfeed: February 17, 2017

Politics Trump Ethics Monitor: Has The President Kept His Promises? To track Trump’s ethics-related promises, NPR checked debate transcripts, campaign speeches and press conferences Trump’s South Florida estate raises ethics questions Ethics questions and possible conflicts surrounding President Donald Trump’s frequent trips to his sprawling Mar-a-Lago property, especially in regards to the invitation of Japanese Prime … More Ethics & Society Newsfeed: February 17, 2017
January 27, 2017

Medicine and the Holocaust in Medical Education: International Holocaust Remembrance Day – January 27

By Hedy S. Wald “Medicine was used for villainous ends during the Holocaust.  The Holocaust was an enormous trauma inflicted on human dignity and the human person; medicine was implicated in crimes against humanity.”  His Eminence Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston.1 January 27 is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day designated by the United Nations […]
January 11, 2017

Bishop Tutu’s Plea Prompts Personal Meditation on Assisted Suicide

By Myra Christopher
I worked late Tuesday night and was listening to NPR as I always do during my short commute home when I heard that, in celebration of his 85th birthday, Bishop Desmond Tutu announced that he supports physician-assisted suicide and “prays that politicians, lawmakers and religious leaders have the courage to support the choices that terminally ill citizens make in departing Mother Earth with dignity and love.” I was stunned.

At age 30, I decided to spend my life working to improve end-of-life care and that the way that I would do that would be by “doing ethics.” I would spend my life arguing that the seriously ill and dying have an inherent right to a “dignified death.” This year I will be 70, and I have had a long and interesting career. Over the past 40 years, the issues of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have been what I considered as recurring distractions from what I have thought to be really important, i.e., advancing palliative care. Bishop Tutu’s comments, however, cannot and should not be considered by any one as simply a “distraction.” I believe they are a “game-changer.”

In the late 1990s, I directed Community-State Partnerships to Improve End-of-Life Care, an $11.25m Robert Wood Johnson (RWJ) Foundation grant award program. At about the same time, Jack Kevorkian – or Dr. Death as he came to be known – came on to the public scene. At a national conference, I was asked what I thought of Dr. Kevorkian, and I said without hesitating that I thought he was a murderer and should be imprisoned.

Envisioning Other Options

After the conference, a communication officer from the RWJ Foundation asked me if I knew the data regarding public views on physician-assisted suicide. I said that, of course, I did – 50% of Americans were for it and 50% were against it. She said, “You realize that when you made the statement you did that half the audience turned you off,” and then asked me if I could imagine saying something like, “Physician-assisted suicide is something good people disagree about, but what we can all agree upon is that we must do a better job of caring for those who are seriously ill and dying so that they don’t see suicide as their only option.”

That statement made good sense to me and has served me well over the years. To clarify my personal view, I always add that I am against the “legalization” of assisted suicide but would NEVER pass moral judgment on a caring committed physician or loving family member who assisted a patient or loved one to die. Furthermore, I know that it happens all over the United States every day. Years ago, an article titled “It’s Over Debbie” was published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Society) in which a resident anonymously reported having euthanized a young woman in agonal pain dying of a terminal gynecological cancer. I got four calls, two of them from healthcare professionals in Kansas City, telling me that the caller was sure the event had occurred in their own hospital. 

Personal Choice and the Slippery Slope

I have shared in private conversations, however, that in certain situations, I would personally choose to end my own life and expect others to help me to do so if I were incapable of acting on my own behalf. I recognize the logical inconsistency of my thoughts and have felt hypocritical from time to time. But because so many people in the U.S. are not insured and do not have access to healthcare, especially good end-of-life care, and because we know without question that certain populations, e.g., people of color and those in lower socio-economic situations, receive less care, worse care and have poorer outcomes, I have felt that legalizing physician-assisted suicide could potentially make these people even more vulnerable…that it was just too risky. Even though the data from Oregon, the first state in the U.S. to legalize physician-assisted suicide, has not proven that to be true, my fear has been the “slippery slope,” i.e., if we allow competent people to make this choice, are we then far from deciding the same should be true for those who cannot make decisions for themselves. I still do not believe that concern is unfounded.

The Netherlands, the first country to legalize euthanasia, now allows others to make decisions about ending the lives of those who are unable to be self-determining. Furthermore, years ago, I debated this issue with Derek Humphry, Founder of the Hemlock Society, and when I asked him if he would support euthanizing people who had never been able to express their wishes, he said something like “not now.”

No Safe Harbor

Bishop Tutu
Ironically, in the early 2000s, two nurses in upstate New York who published an online newspaper called The North Country Gazette, decided that I was the leader of the euthanasia movement in the U.S. For several months, they published a “front-page” article about euthanasia and included my name in the headline. I wasn’t aware of it until I began to receive letters from children asking me why I wanted to kill their grandmother and got a couple of calls from national organizations with whom the Center was working asking me to clarify our position on euthanasia. (I should point out that the Center does not now nor has it ever had an official position on euthanasia. Members of the Center’s board and staff are not of one mind about this issue, and I suspect never will be.)

After hand-printing a few letters to children saying that I was not sure why they thought I would ever want to harm their grandmother, we learned the source of the perception. I honestly will never know why I became the target of this series. I do know, however, that it was heart-breaking to me that for nearly two years, if you Googled “euthanasia,” my name was the first thing to pop-up. 

Neither my ambivalence (or lack of intellectual clarity) nor my efforts to claim the moral high ground – or even what I thought to be clever communication strategies – had provided me a safe harbor or a pass from this debate.

A Moral Right

Now on Tuesday night, Bishop Desmond Tutu, a person who for years I have considered a global moral leader and personal hero, spoke with conviction and confidence about euthanasia as a moral right, an entitlement. 


Ethics is not about black and white. In my experience, it is clearly about trying to deal with “shades of gray.” But, from a philosophical perspective, respect for human life is not negotiable and that has been a sticking point for me. Tuesday night Bishop Tutu said, “As a Christian, I believe in the sanctity of life and that death is a part of life. I hope that when the time comes I am treated with compassion and allowed to pass on to the next phase of life’s journey in the manner of my choice.” I do too. 




January 11, 2017

Bishop Tutu’s Plea Prompts Personal Meditation on Assisted Suicide

By Myra Christopher
I worked late Tuesday night and was listening to NPR as I always do during my short commute home when I heard that, in celebration of his 85th birthday, Bishop Desmond Tutu announced that he supports physician-assisted suicide and “prays that politicians, lawmakers and religious leaders have the courage to support the choices that terminally ill citizens make in departing Mother Earth with dignity and love.” I was stunned.

At age 30, I decided to spend my life working to improve end-of-life care and that the way that I would do that would be by “doing ethics.” I would spend my life arguing that the seriously ill and dying have an inherent right to a “dignified death.” This year I will be 70, and I have had a long and interesting career. Over the past 40 years, the issues of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have been what I considered as recurring distractions from what I have thought to be really important, i.e., advancing palliative care. Bishop Tutu’s comments, however, cannot and should not be considered by any one as simply a “distraction.” I believe they are a “game-changer.”

In the late 1990s, I directed Community-State Partnerships to Improve End-of-Life Care, an $11.25m Robert Wood Johnson (RWJ) Foundation grant award program. At about the same time, Jack Kevorkian – or Dr. Death as he came to be known – came on to the public scene. At a national conference, I was asked what I thought of Dr. Kevorkian, and I said without hesitating that I thought he was a murderer and should be imprisoned.

Envisioning Other Options

After the conference, a communication officer from the RWJ Foundation asked me if I knew the data regarding public views on physician-assisted suicide. I said that, of course, I did – 50% of Americans were for it and 50% were against it. She said, “You realize that when you made the statement you did that half the audience turned you off,” and then asked me if I could imagine saying something like, “Physician-assisted suicide is something good people disagree about, but what we can all agree upon is that we must do a better job of caring for those who are seriously ill and dying so that they don’t see suicide as their only option.”

That statement made good sense to me and has served me well over the years. To clarify my personal view, I always add that I am against the “legalization” of assisted suicide but would NEVER pass moral judgment on a caring committed physician or loving family member who assisted a patient or loved one to die. Furthermore, I know that it happens all over the United States every day. Years ago, an article titled “It’s Over Debbie” was published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Society) in which a resident anonymously reported having euthanized a young woman in agonal pain dying of a terminal gynecological cancer. I got four calls, two of them from healthcare professionals in Kansas City, telling me that the caller was sure the event had occurred in their own hospital. 

Personal Choice and the Slippery Slope

I have shared in private conversations, however, that in certain situations, I would personally choose to end my own life and expect others to help me to do so if I were incapable of acting on my own behalf. I recognize the logical inconsistency of my thoughts and have felt hypocritical from time to time. But because so many people in the U.S. are not insured and do not have access to healthcare, especially good end-of-life care, and because we know without question that certain populations, e.g., people of color and those in lower socio-economic situations, receive less care, worse care and have poorer outcomes, I have felt that legalizing physician-assisted suicide could potentially make these people even more vulnerable…that it was just too risky. Even though the data from Oregon, the first state in the U.S. to legalize physician-assisted suicide, has not proven that to be true, my fear has been the “slippery slope,” i.e., if we allow competent people to make this choice, are we then far from deciding the same should be true for those who cannot make decisions for themselves. I still do not believe that concern is unfounded.

The Netherlands, the first country to legalize euthanasia, now allows others to make decisions about ending the lives of those who are unable to be self-determining. Furthermore, years ago, I debated this issue with Derek Humphry, Founder of the Hemlock Society, and when I asked him if he would support euthanizing people who had never been able to express their wishes, he said something like “not now.”

No Safe Harbor

Bishop Tutu
Ironically, in the early 2000s, two nurses in upstate New York who published an online newspaper called The North Country Gazette, decided that I was the leader of the euthanasia movement in the U.S. For several months, they published a “front-page” article about euthanasia and included my name in the headline. I wasn’t aware of it until I began to receive letters from children asking me why I wanted to kill their grandmother and got a couple of calls from national organizations with whom the Center was working asking me to clarify our position on euthanasia. (I should point out that the Center does not now nor has it ever had an official position on euthanasia. Members of the Center’s board and staff are not of one mind about this issue, and I suspect never will be.)

After hand-printing a few letters to children saying that I was not sure why they thought I would ever want to harm their grandmother, we learned the source of the perception. I honestly will never know why I became the target of this series. I do know, however, that it was heart-breaking to me that for nearly two years, if you Googled “euthanasia,” my name was the first thing to pop-up. 

Neither my ambivalence (or lack of intellectual clarity) nor my efforts to claim the moral high ground – or even what I thought to be clever communication strategies – had provided me a safe harbor or a pass from this debate.

A Moral Right

Now on Tuesday night, Bishop Desmond Tutu, a person who for years I have considered a global moral leader and personal hero, spoke with conviction and confidence about euthanasia as a moral right, an entitlement. 


Ethics is not about black and white. In my experience, it is clearly about trying to deal with “shades of gray.” But, from a philosophical perspective, respect for human life is not negotiable and that has been a sticking point for me. Tuesday night Bishop Tutu said, “As a Christian, I believe in the sanctity of life and that death is a part of life. I hope that when the time comes I am treated with compassion and allowed to pass on to the next phase of life’s journey in the manner of my choice.” I do too. 




December 9, 2016

The National Transgender Study is a Start – But More is Needed to Protect the Sexual Health of Transgender Teens

On Thursday, December 9th, the largest survey of transgender people ever conducted was published by The National Center for Transgender Equality. The anonymous online survey had nearly 28,000 participants and found transgender people are twice as likely to live in poverty and three times more likely to be unemployed, according to an article in TIME … More The National Transgender Study is a Start – But More is Needed to Protect the Sexual Health of Transgender Teens
August 9, 2016

My Patient

By Suzanne Minor The student used the phrase “my patient” six times during the brief patient interaction: “I don’t like my patients to not exercise.”  “I like it when my patients eat healthy.”  “I like it when my patients take their medications” and so on.  Many students use this phrase occasionally, but this was striking.  […]
May 17, 2016

What’s Laremy Tunsil Got To Do With It? Professionalism, Social Media, and Medical Education

By Mark Kuczewski On April 28, 2016, ten minutes before the NFL draft of college players was to begin, the Twitter account of Laremy Tunsil of the University of Mississippi, displayed a video of him wearing a gas mask and smoking from a bong.  Mr. Tunsil was a talented prospect widely believed about to become […]
February 15, 2016

Death with Dignity?

Tarris Rosell, PhD, DMin


What Kansans Need to Consider about House Bill No. 2150

(“The Kansas Death with Dignity Act”)

How would you answer the following question if a Gallup pollster asked?

When a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, do you think doctors should or should not be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patient requests it?

As of mid-2015, nearly 7 out of 10 Americans polled answered that question, “Yes,” including 48% of those who attend church weekly. The vast majority of Americans, and 81% of young adults ages 18-34, currently favor physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Are they right? Could that large a majority possibly be mistaken?

Kansas legislators, like those in most states, have had opportunity to consider making PAS legal. It is already legal, with restrictions and regulations, in several other states, most notably Oregon, Montana, Vermont and Washington, and as of this year California. The addition of California now makes the question relevant to 1 in 10 of all Americans. The 1994 Oregon “Death with Dignity Act” served as the model in California, and also for Kansas House Bill No. 2150, introduced last year. No hearing was held.

Governor Jerry Brown, a Catholic Christian, recently signed that CA legislation after much thought. Kansas Governor Brownback, also a Catholic, seems unlikely to sign such a bill even if it were to get out of committee and garner enough support to get through both chambers of the Kansas legislature. Is this good public policy? Or are we wrong-headed in the Heartland?

One of the influences credited with raising Gallup percentages especially among young people was the physician-aided death of 29-year old Brittany Maynard.

Brittany was living in California when diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive form of terminal brain cancer. After much research and discussion, Brittany decided to move with her husband and mother to Oregon so as to qualify for that state's "death with dignity" protocol. After establishing residency and meeting with physicians, Brittany received her lethal prescription of drugs, to be used or not at the recipient's will. If taken as a means to end life, Oregon law specifies that the drugs would need to be taken by Brittany's own hand. No one could do it for her.



Upon experiencing multiple seizures and cancer-related pain, Ms. Maynard decided to take a lethal dose of medications prescribed for this purpose, and thereby end her life on November 1, 2014. Close family and friends accompanied her at the time of departure. It was said to have been a peaceful death. Was it a "death with dignity?"

In a dialogue group I attend monthly, involving mostly physicians and chaplains, the Brittany Maynard case was discussed after viewing a six-minute YouTube video posted by Brittany prior to her death. I have facilitated discussion of this case with groups of seminarians and medical students, also. Each time, I poll the participants on their opinion of PAS. Regardless of the group, percentages mirror those of Gallup. So should the majority rule in Kansas on this matter?

A hospice physician friend suggested that Brittany Maynard might have utilized palliative care in hospice. He acknowledged that this could not guarantee a death without pain and suffering, but that hospice care places value on a dying patient’s dignity. Indeed, most surely do, and most hospice deaths seem relatively peaceful. This is what I, and most bioethicists I know, advocate rather than expanding access to PAS. It may well be that the American majority has been misled, and that the better way to achieve death with dignity is to promote palliative and hospice care—especially for those groups who don’t have access to comprehensive care. But really, for all of us.

Brittany and at least 859 other terminally ill patients in Oregon over the course of the last 15 years or so, have chosen a different route to their deaths. Even in Oregon this remains a remote event, affecting only about 3 deaths in 1,000. I don’t condemn them nor their assisting physicians. Condemnation gets us nowhere good. I urge thoughtful and respectful ethics dialogue instead.

I advocate for better advance care planning, earlier end-of-life conversations between patients and their physicians, and more robust discussions about goals of care in advance of health crises. Increased public funding seems necessary so as to train more palliative care and hospice physicians. More research, and research funding, is needed for rigorous evaluation of the care currently being provided to dying patients.

This seems to me the better path to death with dignity, not only in the Heartland but everywhere.

How does it seem to you?


RESOURCES:




Tarris Rosell, PhD, DMin, is the Rosemary Flanigan Chair at the Center for Practical Bioethics.

February 15, 2016

Death with Dignity?

Tarris Rosell, PhD, DMin


What Kansans Need to Consider about House Bill No. 2150

(“The Kansas Death with Dignity Act”)

How would you answer the following question if a Gallup pollster asked?

When a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, do you think doctors should or should not be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patient requests it?

As of mid-2015, nearly 7 out of 10 Americans polled answered that question, “Yes,” including 48% of those who attend church weekly. The vast majority of Americans, and 81% of young adults ages 18-34, currently favor physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Are they right? Could that large a majority possibly be mistaken?

Kansas legislators, like those in most states, have had opportunity to consider making PAS legal. It is already legal, with restrictions and regulations, in several other states, most notably Oregon, Montana, Vermont and Washington, and as of this year California. The addition of California now makes the question relevant to 1 in 10 of all Americans. The 1994 Oregon “Death with Dignity Act” served as the model in California, and also for Kansas House Bill No. 2150, introduced last year. No hearing was held.

Governor Jerry Brown, a Catholic Christian, recently signed that CA legislation after much thought. Kansas Governor Brownback, also a Catholic, seems unlikely to sign such a bill even if it were to get out of committee and garner enough support to get through both chambers of the Kansas legislature. Is this good public policy? Or are we wrong-headed in the Heartland?

One of the influences credited with raising Gallup percentages especially among young people was the physician-aided death of 29-year old Brittany Maynard.

Brittany was living in California when diagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive form of terminal brain cancer. After much research and discussion, Brittany decided to move with her husband and mother to Oregon so as to qualify for that state's "death with dignity" protocol. After establishing residency and meeting with physicians, Brittany received her lethal prescription of drugs, to be used or not at the recipient's will. If taken as a means to end life, Oregon law specifies that the drugs would need to be taken by Brittany's own hand. No one could do it for her.



Upon experiencing multiple seizures and cancer-related pain, Ms. Maynard decided to take a lethal dose of medications prescribed for this purpose, and thereby end her life on November 1, 2014. Close family and friends accompanied her at the time of departure. It was said to have been a peaceful death. Was it a "death with dignity?"

In a dialogue group I attend monthly, involving mostly physicians and chaplains, the Brittany Maynard case was discussed after viewing a six-minute YouTube video posted by Brittany prior to her death. I have facilitated discussion of this case with groups of seminarians and medical students, also. Each time, I poll the participants on their opinion of PAS. Regardless of the group, percentages mirror those of Gallup. So should the majority rule in Kansas on this matter?

A hospice physician friend suggested that Brittany Maynard might have utilized palliative care in hospice. He acknowledged that this could not guarantee a death without pain and suffering, but that hospice care places value on a dying patient’s dignity. Indeed, most surely do, and most hospice deaths seem relatively peaceful. This is what I, and most bioethicists I know, advocate rather than expanding access to PAS. It may well be that the American majority has been misled, and that the better way to achieve death with dignity is to promote palliative and hospice care—especially for those groups who don’t have access to comprehensive care. But really, for all of us.

Brittany and at least 859 other terminally ill patients in Oregon over the course of the last 15 years or so, have chosen a different route to their deaths. Even in Oregon this remains a remote event, affecting only about 3 deaths in 1,000. I don’t condemn them nor their assisting physicians. Condemnation gets us nowhere good. I urge thoughtful and respectful ethics dialogue instead.

I advocate for better advance care planning, earlier end-of-life conversations between patients and their physicians, and more robust discussions about goals of care in advance of health crises. Increased public funding seems necessary so as to train more palliative care and hospice physicians. More research, and research funding, is needed for rigorous evaluation of the care currently being provided to dying patients.

This seems to me the better path to death with dignity, not only in the Heartland but everywhere.

How does it seem to you?


RESOURCES:




Tarris Rosell, PhD, DMin, is the Rosemary Flanigan Chair at the Center for Practical Bioethics.

View More Blog Entries

Published Articles (39)

American Journal of Bioethics: Volume 11 Issue 6 - Jun 2011

Fat Chance Getting an Obstetrician in South Florida? Ethics and Discrimination in Obstetrics and Gynecology

American Journal of Bioethics: Volume 11 Issue 2 - Feb 2011

Book Review of D. Micah Hester, End of Life Care and Pragmatic Decision Making

American Journal of Bioethics: Volume 10 Issue 11 - Nov 2010

Pain Treatment Agreements

American Journal of Bioethics: Volume 10 Issue 9 - Sep 2010

To the Barricades!

American Journal of Bioethics: Volume 10 Issue 5 - May 2010

Response to Open Peer Commentaries on ?Stem Cell Tourism and the Power of Hope?

American Journal of Bioethics: Volume 10 Issue 5 - May 2010

Stem Cell Tourism and the Power of Hope

American Journal of Bioethics: Volume 10 Issue 1 - Jan 2010

Response to Open Peer Commentaries on ?The Pitfalls of Deducing Ethics from Economics: Why the Association of American Medical Colleges is Wrong About Pharmaceutical Detailing?

American Journal of Bioethics: Volume 10 Issue 1 - Jan 2010

The Pitfalls of Deducing Ethics From Behavioral Economics: Why the Association of American Medical Colleges Is Wrong About Pharmaceutical Detailing

American Journal of Bioethics: Volume 10 Issue 3 - Mar 2010

The Secret of Caring for Mr. Golubchuk

American Journal of Bioethics: Volume 10 Issue 3 - Mar 2010

The Case of Samuel Golubchuk and the Right to Live

View More Articles

News (51)

October 23, 2012 6:44 pm

Reproductive Tourism: Paying Women in Poor Countries to Bear Our Babies is Rife with Ethical Problems (HealthCanal.com)

In their upcoming paper, “Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism” in theJournal of Medical Ethics, Professor Raywat Deonandan et al. enumerate the specific ethical challenges posed by this emerging new industry.  Along with six other concerning issues, the authors identified the tension between business ethics and medical ethics as being at the heart of the industry’s ethical problem, along with an insufficiently broad definition of “informed consent.” When desperately poor, illiterate and vulnerable village women are entering into complicated contracts to sell their reproductive health to wealthy foreigners, often some of the softer social risks are not communicated to them, such as their risk of estrangement from their communities, or the risk of domestic unease with their spouses and existing children.

August 28, 2012 12:45 pm

Doctors Refuses To Treat 200-Pound Woman Because Of Her Weight (Business Insider)

In an interview with WCVB-TV, Dr. Carter explained, “After three consecutive injuries (with other patients) trying to care for people over 250 pounds, my office is unable to accommodate a certain weight and we put a limit on it.”
And Carter is completely within her professional rights to do so. Under Opinion 9.12 of the AMA Code of Medical Ethics, both physicians and patients are free to decline a relationship. “A physician may decline to undertake the care of a patient whose medical condition is not within the physician’s current competence,” the code says.

August 15, 2012 1:35 pm

Autism Transplant Denial Sparks Debate (ABC News)

Dr. David Cronin, an associate professor of transplant surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin, told ABCNews.com he does not know the case, but organ transplant denial tends to be easier for people to accept because of an anatomic problem, such as calcified blood vessels that would prevent the successful implantation of a new kidney.

August 14, 2012 7:51 pm

Doctors Fail to Review Tests Before Hospital Discharge (Businessweek)

Doctors who order tests for hospital patients don’t always read the results before the patient is discharged, raising the risk of missing potentially dangerous conditions, an Australian study found.  About half of the unread tests were ordered on the day the patient left the hospital, according to research today in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Many of those results still hadn’t been reviewed two months later, the researchers said.

August 12, 2012 6:39 pm

More voices raising questions about consumer gene testing (Silicon Beat)

The Mercury News editorial page had a great column today from three experts on genetic testing that provides the medical perspective on why a physician should be involved in the direct-to-consumer genetic testing process. They argue that these are indeed medical tests, despite industry arguments otherwise. And the results are complex.

August 6, 2012 7:46 pm

Organ Transplant Scandal Shocks Germany (Democratic Underground)

A surgeon identified as Dr. Aiman O. is suspected of fraudulently manipulating dozens of his patients’ test results, making them appear sicker than they were to get them liver transplants more quickly — and possibly putting them ahead of people who more desperately needed them. The case first emerged in late July at the University Medical Center Göttingen, in the northern German state of Lower Saxony, from where the senior physician has been suspended since November for allegedly tampering with some 23 transplant cases. A gastroenterologist suspected of involvement has also been suspended.

July 26, 2012 4:20 pm

Circumcision for Non-Medical Reasons Is Wrong (Spiegel Online)

As the debate over the medical ethics of circumcision rages in Germany, some have argued that the practice provides health benefits. But many in the medical community disagree. Circumcision is not in the best interest of boys who undergo the procedure.

July 17, 2012 4:08 pm

Penn expert addresses ethical implications of testing for Alzheimer's disease risk (Eureka Alert)

VANCOUVER – Diagnostic tests are increasingly capable of identifying plaques and tangles present in Alzheimer’s disease, yet the disease remains untreatable. Questions remain about how these tests can be used in research studies examining potential interventions to treat and prevent Alzheimer’s disease. Experts from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania will today participate in a panel at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2012 (AAIC 2012) discussing ways to ethically disclose and provide information about test results to asymptomatic older adults.  In contrast to diseases like cancer – where tumor progression and genetic markers can be measured to determine appropriate preventative steps or targeted treatments – Alzheimer’s disease tests has improved diagnosis and assessment of risk, but no treatments or preventative measures are available to alter the disease progression.

 

July 13, 2012 1:09 pm

Turkish doctors face fines for elective caesareans (The Guardian)

Itil is concerned that doctors might not be ready to opt for surgery once the law is in place: “How can a law decide when a patient requires a certain treatment? This is against medical ethics, and the art of medicine in general. Turkey will set a very negative example with this law.”

July 12, 2012 12:35 pm

Patients reluctant to disagree with doctor's advice (Chicago Tribune)

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Although most people who participated in a new survey preferred making medical decisions together with their doctor, the majority said they wouldn’t speak up if what they wanted conflicted with their physician’s recommendations.

View More News Items