Albany Medical Center
 Search
Home / Caring / Educating / Find a Doctor / News / Give Now / Careers / About / Calendar / Directions / Contact
Topic: Bioethics and the Law
July 14, 2014 | Posted By Bruce D. White, DO, JD

On the very last day of the 2014 legislative session, the New York Senate passed “The Compassionate Care Act” (S.1682-A, Savino) approving the legalization of medical marijuana.  The Assembly had previously passed a companion bill (A.6357-A, Gottfried). The Senate bill has been sent to Governor Cuomo for his signature. The governor endorsed the bill in the legislature, but as of July 4, 2014, has yet to sign it.

New York medical marijuana proponents have been advocating for the availability of cannabis for several years. Neighboring states Connecticut, New Jersey, and Vermont, and 18 other states and the District of Columbia currently allow medical marijuana. However, last minute compromise changes to the New York law will severely restrict access to medical cannabis. In fact, the limitations are so rigid that some might say the bill is a hallow shell, a sham, one designed to appear to allow medical marijuana yet really not. Regardless of how one feels about medical cannabis, to hype the public into believing that marijuana will be available for medical purposes and then establishing barriers to its accessibility that is a fraud. It would be unconscionable to raise the hopes of distressed patients, many suffering with chronic and painful conditions, only to see those hopes dashed.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

June 6, 2014 | Posted By Bruce D. White, DO, JD

The ongoing VA scandal is indeed unfortunate and sad. In a speech on May 30, 2014, in Washington, DC, Eric K. Shinseki apologized for the “systemic, totally unacceptable lack of integrity” shown by some administrators in managing the Veterans Administration health care system hospitals and clinics. Within hours of the apology, Secretary Shinseki resigned.

It is clear that the trouble within the VA has been brewing for some time. The fuse that set off this latest explosion may have been whistleblower claims that managers at the Phoenix VA Medical Center were keeping two sets of books which logged wait times for veterans seeking primary care appointments. There are allegations that some of the delays resulted in veteran deaths. Acting VA Inspector General Richard J. Griffin issued a preliminary report confirming that Phoenix VA administrators had manipulated wait times possibly to assure more favorable annual performance reviews and higher bonuses and compensation for staff.  The unethical behavior by those entrusted with the care of our veterans is inexcusable.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

February 17, 2014 | Posted By Bruce White, DO, JD

Last month, a New Mexico trial court judge ruled that a terminally ill patient had a constitutionally protected right to aid in dying from a physician without risking criminal prosecution for assisted suicide. Judge Nan G. Nash of the Second District Court in Albuquerque based her opinion in the New Mexico Constitution: “This court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying.” Thus, the state became the fifth to permit physician-assisted suicide, following Oregon (1997, approved by voter referendum), Washington (2006, approved by voter referendum), Montana (2009, allowed by state supreme court opinion), and Vermont (2013, enacted by the state legislature).

The case was brought by two oncologists (Drs. Katherine Morris and Aroop Mangalik) who asked the court to clarify the state’s assisted suicide law and allow them write a lethal dose of a drug for a 49-year-old patient (Aja Riggs) with advanced uterine cancer. Critical to the case may have been the December trial testimony from the patient: “I don’t want to suffer needlessly at the end.”

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

November 12, 2013 | Posted By Bruce White, DO, JD

With the endorsement of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) Board of Directors, and the publication of a process to confer eventually a “quality attestation” credential on successful candidates, the ASBH Quality Attestation Presidential Task Force (QAPTF) has begun apilot procedure to assess those involved in providing clinical ethics consultation services. Importantly, it’s unclear at this point if the Task Force will be looking at those who provide consultation as an individual, or as a member of a small group of consultants or as a member of a larger ethics committee.

As part of the pilot to refine the process, the QAPTF has asked those interested to submit a letter of intent. (It is not a requirement that one be an ASBH member to submit a letter of intent.) The Task Force will review the submitted letters and select a representative sample (“a cross-section of eligible candidates whose professions represent the distribution of professions among Clinical Ethics Consultants”). 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

July 25, 2013 | Posted By Benita Zahn, MS

The law in the United States is clear that once a person has completed their prison sentence and parole they are free to go on and live their lives. The state does not have continued control over them. While some might argue that for sex offenders and regulations regarding where they may live impinges on this, that narrow issue is not the focus of this paper. I will argue that castration, chemical or physical, is antithetical to our society. 

The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Mutilation would be considered cruel and unusual punishment and castration clearly falls under that banner. It involves a surgical procedure to remove the testicles or in women, the removal of their ovaries. One need to look no further than to realize physical castration to control sexual predators should not be permitted.    

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

June 13, 2013 | Posted By Ricki Lewis, PhD

Earlier today, my “in” box began to fill with info from everyone I’ve ever met letting me know that the Supreme Court had ruled on the Myriad case about patenting the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. I also received a dozen pitches from PR people offering me all manner of instant interviews with lawyers, doctors, bioethicists, and health care analysts.

No one offered me an interview with a geneticist – a person who knows something about DNA. So being such a person myself, I decided to take a look at the decision. And I found errors – starting right smack in the opening paragraph.

“Scientists can extract DNA from cells to isolate specific segments for study. They can also synthetically create exons-only strands of nucleotides known as composite DNA (cDNA). cDNA contains only the exons that occur in DNA, omitting the intervening exons.”

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

May 30, 2013 | Posted By Marleen Eijkholt, PhD

One week ago, the state of Vermont passed legislation allowing Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) in its ‘Patient Choice at End of Life’ Bill. This Bill will protect physicians from criminal liability for prescribing a medication that will hasten a patient’s death, under certain conditions and given certain safeguards. The legislative regime is relatively clear, and its comprehensible provisions can be applauded. Still some ambiguity exists overall about the distinction between PAS and euthanasia, as evidenced by the following headline: ‘Vermont Assisted Suicide Bill: Vermont Gives Euthanasia the Green Light’. The legislation itself does not necessarily do a service to clarify these terms, in its reference to active euthanasia. In this blog post, I seek to clarify some of the legislative regime in Vermont and clarify some terminology around PAS and euthanasia. 

Vermont is the third State that has legally permitted PAS, and is the first one to do so by law directly. Oregon and Washington legalized PAS respectively in 1994 (confirmed in 2006) and 2008 after referenda. Montana allowed PAS by a court judgment in 2009, but no Bill has been enacted yet. Vermont’s Bill was crafted with the Oregon legislation in mind. Its current safeguards revolve around record keeping by the physician, its requirements that a patient needs to suffer a terminal illness and have less than six months to live, as well its requirements for a the written statement of a patient (next to two oral ones), and a concurring opinion from a second physician. These safeguards were a compromise to facilitate and speed up the process of the Bill. In 2016 these safeguards will be replaced, and PAS will be governed by professional practice standards, like in other areas of medicine (Provision 5292).    

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

January 24, 2013 | Posted By Joshua Perry, JD & Jamie Prenkert, JD

Objections to flu shots among healthcare workers have garnered much recent media attention. Depending on your point of view, the objecting workers might be martyrs for their beliefs or callous villains intent on spreading preventable disease. Regardless, the ethical and legal issues need to be clarified before resorting to simplistic labels.

First, what’s the fuss all about? Healthcare workers around the nation have reportedly refused to take the flu vaccine for a number of reasons. The objections are premised upon personal autonomy or ideology (“Nobody should be able to force me to put anything into my body.”), scientific skepticism (“I don’t believe the flu shot works.”), medical fear (“I may be one who has a rare allergic reaction.”), and/or some variety of religious conviction (“God gave us a body with an immune system, and if we live healthy and pray, we won’t get sick.").

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admits that the flu vaccine is not 100 percent effective, given the variety of strains floating around out there. In fact, the efficacy of this year’s shot is only about 62 percent. That is not great, but it is far better than nothing. The American Medical Association, American Nurses Association, and CDC all recommend healthcare workers be vaccinated to enhance patient safety. 

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

January 14, 2013 | Posted By Jane Jankowski, LMSW, MS

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy and the movie theatre massacre in Colorado, accounts of mentally ill perpetrators are offered as partial explanations as to how these horrific events came to pass. The public outcry for revised gun control measures is understandable and well placed. I don’t disagree. Yet, the predictability of which firearm aficionados may also harbor a latent predisposition toward violence may be an unreasonable task for agencies tasked with licensing weapon worthy citizens, particularly when it comes to assessing someone with a history of mental illness. The paradox of a system which relies on questions about a personal history of psychiatric treatment does not mean an individual has not needed care.  If behavioral health services are not accessible or available, there would not be any record of such intervention. This does not mean that such intervention has not been suggested, desired, or otherwise indicated.  That said, a history of mental health treatment ought to not automatically suggest the applicant should be denied a right offered other citizens.  Focusing funding and effort on firearm marketplace controls may override the much needed attention on community mental health care which are lacking across the nation.  Ensuring our nation also has accessible, high quality behavioral health treatment programs will have benefits which extend far beyond the gun control debates.  Though we may never be able to fully disentangle the issues of gun rights and mental illness, perhaps we can maximize this opportunity to press our leaders into putting some real muscle, in the form of dollars, behind mental health treatment programs.  

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

January 7, 2013 | Posted By Ricki Lewis, PhD


In 1729, Jonathan Swift of Gulliver’s Travels fame published a satirical essay called "A Modest Proposal." He suggested that a cure for poverty was for poor people to sell their children to rich people as food.

I’m borrowing Swift’s title to bring up another outrageous idea: analyzing forensic DNA databases for a genetic signature of criminality.

Is there a genetic signature for criminality? 
It’s an old and controversial question. (NHGRI)

ADAM LANZA’S DNA

Days after the Newtown shootings of December 14, 2012, headlines trumpeted the state medical examiner’s request of University of Connecticut geneticists to examine mass murderer Adam Lanza’s DNA. What exactly that might entail wasn’t announced, but celebrity docs, geneticists, and bloggers weighed in, nearly all agreeing that (1) violent tendencies are due to complex interactions of many genetic and environmental factors and (2) probing Lanza’s DNA and finding anything even suggestive of causing his crime could lead to stigmatization of individuals who share suspect genome regions with him.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers a Master of Science in Bioethics, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in Bioethics, and Graduate Certificates in Clinical Ethics and Clinical Ethics Consultation. For more information on AMBI's online graduate programs, please visit our website.

SEARCH BIOETHICS TODAY
SUBSCRIBE TO BIOETHICS TODAY
ABOUT BIOETHICS TODAY
BIOETHICS TODAY is the blog of the Alden March Bioethics Institute, presenting topical and timely commentary on issues, trends, and breaking news in the broad arena of bioethics. BIOETHICS TODAY presents interviews, opinion pieces, and ongoing articles on health care policy, end-of-life decision making, emerging issues in genetics and genomics, procreative liberty and reproductive health, ethics in clinical trials, medicine and the media, distributive justice and health care delivery in developing nations, and the intersection of environmental conservation and bioethics.
TOPICS