Albany Medical Center
 Search
Home / Caring / Educating / Find a Doctor / News / Give Now / Careers / About / Calendar / Directions / Contact
Topic: Politics
October 30, 2014 | Posted By Thomas Andersen, PhD

Implementation of medical quarantines in America brings into conflict various legitimate arguments regarding who, if anyone, should have the authority to restrict movements of citizens.  Quarantines are not new, but they exist now in a world with new dangers and new opportunities for abuse.

In teaching medical students in recent years, it became apparent that many students found the concept of a home quarantine to be abhorrent.  Many were aghast at the concept that a patient could be restricted from daily activities, and found it an egregious violation of civil liberties and ethical conduct.  Interestingly, these views were often not mitigated substantially when students were informed that, in former days, quarantines were fairly common in this country and elsewhere.  In a world before the Internet in which home confinement was really quite restrictive, medical quarantines for diseases such as small pox, tuberculosis, or even measles were not uncommon. Such quarantines were usually imposed by a local health official.  In addition, many families self-quarantined, or at least avoided exposure to potential sources of disease. For example, some people used to avoid many summer activities for fear of contracting polio.  Due largely to the development of vaccination, many of the diseases that would have invoked a quarantine in earlier years are no longer of concern, and the concept of quarantine has become a bit anachronistic, even in a world that offers many portals that would seemingly make confinement less onerous.  But the topic of quarantine requires renewed consideration in the world of today.

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.

October 10, 2014 | Posted By John Kaplan, PhD

When the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as Obamacare was under consideration there was an unrelenting partisan attack against both the proposed legislation and the president who proposed it. We were told that millions would lose insurance coverage, that the cost of medical care would skyrocket, and that government bureaucrats would be interfering with the health care relationship between us and our physicians. We were told that death panels would be making decisions to end the life of the elderly and infirm. We were told all sorts of things that were so ridiculous that I cannot recall them. The fact is we were told lies. Interestingly and importantly none of these things have occurred. The Affordable Care Act was designed to increase the extent of medical insurance coverage and the corresponding access to health care permitted by insurance coverage. The Affordable Care Act was also designed to slow the growth of health care costs. While it is true that there were initial technical glitches in its rollout, now a year after people could begin to enroll, and still only months after the initiation of most of its provisions it is clearly apparent that it is doing just what it was designed and implemented to do. Yes, the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, is a success.

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 10, 2014 | Posted By John Kaplan, PhD

I have written before on the subject of stupidity in government. In most cases I have focused on the federal government and, in particular, the parts of congress that make science policy including the funding and regulation of those agencies in the federal government which fund scientific research. However, the stupidity of government is not limited to the federal. Today I will discuss the stupidity governing several states regarding what is allowed to pass as scientific education. Unlike scientific research where most public financial support and policy oversight comes from the federal government, the public support for education and education policy comes primarily from the states. Chris Kirk writing in Slate has recently described the state-by-state distribution of publically funded education that includes the teaching of creationism in science curricula.

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.

December 19, 2013 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

There are some ominous social and political trends currently in American society on which the field of bioethics should focus more attention. In this informal and admittedly polemical blog, I would like to briefly explore a couple of them.

Governors from about half of the states, mostly from the Tea Party GOP, have invoked their constitutional right to deny healthcare coverage to individuals in their states who make less that 138% of the federal poverty level. These governors calmly claim that pragmatism, not politics, is the basis for their decision to refuse their states the opportunity to participate in the Medicaid expansion program under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It’s just too costly and the Medicaid program is broken, so they say.

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 25, 2013 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

The political right in the U.S. has mounted a formidable effort from the outset to mischaracterize the aims of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and to mislead voters about the need for fundamental reform in healthcare. I take it as a given that the opposition to the ACA has never been about its efficacy to promote certain goals to expand coverage for more Americans; even if the ACA accomplished its goals perfectly, those on the extreme political right would still oppose it. That is, the opposition from the political right is not about whether or not the ACA will work effectively but about ideology—they oppose the ACA as a matter of principle. They are committed to the view that government should not be involved in healthcare and fear, perhaps rightly, that if the ACA proves workable it would lead to a single payer system of universal coverage for all citizens. They apparently see healthcare services being like any other market service provided in a capitalistic society. But upon even a superficial analysis, this position is flawed.

It is basic to free markets that the ability of an individual to use a certain service or product is a function his or her ability to purchase it. One of the few services that is an exception in our current capitalistic society is healthcare, albeit only at the level of requiring services at an acute level. For example no matter how desperately I need transportation to go back and forth to work, I will not get a free car as a function of someone else’s obligation to provide it. This is not true of healthcare: even if I cannot pay for healthcare or I lack healthcare insurance, if I get sick enough and show up at an Emergency Room, I’ll not only be stabilized, I’ll be hospitalized and be given all I need to improve, or more fittingly, to be rescued from dying.

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.

October 25, 2013 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

In the summer of 2009 when the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, also known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Obamacare, was being widely discussed as a front burner political issue, I attended a town hall meeting held by my congressional representative, a moderate democrat, to listen to public comments before he decided whether or not to support the ACA. In the years following the disappointing implosion of healthcare reform during the Clinton administration, honestly, I did not expect to see the issue of healthcare reform back on the political agenda in my lifetime. So I was eager to attend and lend my support for a bill that would expand healthcare coverage for Americans and to hear my congressman respond to questions. When I arrived I was struck by the number of attendees and even more so by the large number of signs and placards with crude slogans linking ACA death panels, Nazism, killing grandma, etc. It was also striking that many of the people there were local working people who were members of the newly formed Tea Party and fierce opponents of the ACA. The negative views being expressed were passionate and urgent: Passage of the ACA would take our country down a path toward socialism, loss of freedom and government interference into the sacred domain of the physician-patient relationship.

Now that the ACA has passed both chambers of congress, signed by the president and ruled to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, there are still strong efforts by it opponents to stop its implementation. At present, the right wing of Republican Party in the house of representation has been willing to shut down our government and threaten default on our national debt unless the ACA is repealed or delayed. It is instructive to put the recent efforts to derail the ACA into historical context and see them as an extension of a century long effort, led by well-funded special interests groups to motivate American citizens through misinformation and scare tactics to vote against their own interests.

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 27, 2013 | Posted By Marleen Eijkholt, PhD

Sarah is a 10-y old girl with cystic fibrosis who, until recently, was in desperate need of a lung transplant. The doctors had estimated that Sarah would only have a couple more weeks to live without a transplant. Recent news headlines reported about her quest for this transplant, the success of the operation and, over the weekend, they issued the happy news about her regaining consciousness. Most of this news paralleled comments about the battle to revise the legislation, and underscored antagonism towards policy or policy makers (lawyers and ethicists), as if hindering good medicine. 

In this post I would like to comment on this antagonism, and propose that the policy makers did quite a good job in Sarah’s case. I propose that we need a symbiotic relation between medicine and policy makers. As a clinical ethicist with a background in law, I feel a lot of fear for ‘lawyers’, and prejudice against the idea that law, ethics and medicine can go together. In this post, I seek to outline how they can go together, and how Sarah’s case provides an opportunity for partnership. I must note here, however, that this issue is a minor one given the terrible ordeal of all the involved individuals.

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.

December 27, 2012 | Posted By Bruce D. White, DO, JD

In 2012, the percentage of money spent on providing drugs to patients in the United States continued to rise (Hoffman et al., 2012). However, this is a US trend not seen in other developing countries – such as Canada – where national drug expenditure percentages are slowing year after year (CBC News, 2012). In fact, in Canada, the rate of drug cost growth for this year is the lowest of the last 15 years. 

So, why? Simply put, the American pharmaceutical industry has fueled new drug innovation worldwide for decades. Now, the pharmaceutical companies have less money for research and development and are innovating less. When they do innovate, the companies spend their R&D allocations either on “me too” (imitation) drugs, or very, very expensive drugs for which insurance reimbursement is maximized. Market forces drive both these new drug lines. But now, the R&D well is clearly drying up (Adams, 2011).

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.

December 12, 2012 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

Recently, I attended a debate between two very informed health care professionals about whether or not our country should have a single payer health care system. Each seemed to have their own philosophical or ideological perspective about health care as a basic service in our society and it through their ideological lens that each speaker viewed health care and brought to bear the facts to support their positions. It was striking that these two very informed and thoughtful individuals often disagreed about fundamental facts pertaining to our health care system. 

For example, the opponent of a single payer system supported his claim that turning over health care to the federal government would be a failure at least in part on the assumption government is incompetent to perform this task. He claimed, as other thoughtful conservatives do, that that Medicare and Medicaid are less efficient than private health plans. If the analysis in the first link below, which is part of the Ryan Plan, is true, then perhaps there are some facts to support their case.

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 ourwebsite.

November 1, 2012 | Posted By Paul Burcher, MD, PhD

When former President Bill Clinton spoke at the Democratic National Convention, he argued that we must put aside ideologies to “get things done.’”  The implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA) is challenging Republican governors on exactly this point, and their responses are not uniform.  Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona outspoken critic of President Obama and the ACA, has begun planning for, and implementing the healthcare exchanges that states must create under the rules of the legislation.  States that fail to plan for exchanges will have exchanges created for them by the federal government. Six states with Republican governors have decided not to create exchanges, and may also not accept additional money from the federal government to expand Medicaid coverage along the lines set out by the ACA.

Is this just politics as usual, or is there an ethical dimension to this partisan debate?  I would argue that to fight against Obamacare to the detriment of the health of a state’s citizens—the poorest of the states citizens—is a violation of a politician’s duty to beneficence.  Uninsured patients suffer a preventable harm from the lack of access to healthcare, a harm that is now being remediated by the ACA, but only if only states will fully implement its policies.

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