Albany Medical Center
Home / Caring / Educating / Find a Doctor / News / Give Now / Careers / About / Calendar / Directions / Contact
Topic: Politics
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.

July 23, 2012 | Posted By Hayley Dittus-Doria, MPH

As the world knows, obesity has become a public health epidemic over the last several years in the United States, with over 35% of US adults falling into the obese category.  But when public health experts and lawmakers try to “do the right thing” by forcing people to engage in healthier behavior, are they going too far?

In a June 8th article on, Harriet Washington believes that the ban on sugary drinks that New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed is the wrong way to go about encouraging healthy eating and drinking habits.  She also disagrees with “sin taxes,” stating that they often have unintended consequences.  In the sugary beverages ban proposal, restaurants, street carts, and movie theaters would not be able to sell any sugary drinks over 16 ounces.

While I don’t necessarily support an outright ban of sugary drinks, I do think that, for the most part, taxes imposed on items (such as those for tobacco and alcohol) are a great step toward  discouraging people from partaking in these unhealthy behaviors and increasing state revenue at the same time.  Many states have implemented a tax on sugary beverages in recent years, and many others have tried, but failed, for a soda tax to catch on.  Mayor Bloomberg even proposed a soda tax in 2009 for NYC, yet this proposal was eventually abandoned and never came to fruition.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.

July 5, 2012 | Posted By Bruce D. White, DO, JD

The Wednesday, June 27, issue of the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Senate passed a bill empowering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to collect about $6 billion over the next five years in new “user fees.” The bill passed the Senate 92 to 4 and now goes to the White House for President Obama’s signature.

The bill for the first time requires generic drug manufacturers to make payments to the FDA as part of the drug approval, manufacturing, and marketing process. “Innovator” (or what old-timers might recall as “ethical” or “brand name”) pharmaceutical manufacturers have been paying similar user fees since the passage of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992. The user fees were seen as a “private industry” approach with manufacturers being required to shoulder some of the drug regulatory and safety processes costs. Generic manufacturers will contribute about $300 million annually. In return, the FDA has agreed to help speed the approval process for generics.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.


July 2, 2012 | Posted By Wayne Shelton, PhD

The decision by the Supreme Court affirming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) caused many who follow health care closely to breathe a sigh of relief. About 32 million more Americans will now have access to health care insurance. One sticking point that worried many of us was the mandate in the bill requiring everyone to purchase health care. It was frustrating this past March to hear in the oral arguments comparing a requirement for citizens to buy broccoli to a requirement to buy health care, as though both are the same type of market commodities. Many on the right, such as Judges Scalia, Thomas and Alito, expressed concerns that the mandate to require everyone to buy health care was a unconstitutional, a violation of the commerce clause; whereas, many others see health care as a basic public good, which unlike broccoli, everyone requires or will require sooner or later. Fortunately, a legal consensus was reached in the ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts moving over into the majority in the 5-4 vote. In their ruling, the mandate was not viewed as an expansion of the commerce clause, but rather as a tax, which congress has a right to impose. Regardless of the final legal justification of the ruling, many of us are pleased that the most important piece of health care legislation since Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 is now the law of the land.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.

June 29, 2012 | Posted By Posted By David Lemberg, M.S., D.C.

There appears to be hope for America, as a society, a democracy, and a nation. On Thursday, 6/28/2012, as everyone knows, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by a 5–4 vote. Much was at stake, not the least of which was the possibility of affordable health care for all Americans. But beyond this extremely important outcome, the very nature of our democracy was in play, as well as the potential success or failure of the American political enterprise.

For example, lack of affordable health care for every American diminishes our national enterprise in all sectors.

There are other important considerations involved in how the attack on the ACA played out, including the continuing degradation of our use of language. For example, the Supreme Court justices are consistently characterized as “conservative” or “liberal”. This is an immediate problem, as their individual identities are subsumed in the right vs. left dichotomy. But the meanings of the epithets are also lost. To be conservative means to uphold tradition. To be liberal means to uphold progress. However when justices hold their ideologies closely, neither tradition nor progress receive a fair evaluation. As Hannah Arendt states in Between Past and Future, “the very quality of an opinion, as of a judgment, depends upon the degree of its impartiality”. Ideology is not impartial, and Supreme Court opinions have long appeared to be based on politics rather than justice. Obviously, such a state of affairs is a major problem for a democratic society.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.

June 27, 2012 | Posted By Posted By David Lemberg, M.S., D.C.

“Human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars.” — Gustave Flaubert, Madame Bovary

“The chances of factual truth surviving the onslaught of power are very slim indeed … ” — Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future

Although this may be more apparent than real, it seems as if the lying and the lies are increasing in frequency on the national level. Politics has long been characterized as a blood sport, but the escalation of vicious contentiousness since 2008 is unusual and extreme. Factual truth has been cast aside, casually thrown to the wind as if one were systematically ripping the petals off a roadside wildflower and tossing them into the air as so much refuse. The losers are the public, of course, the citizens who depend on the government for sound fiscal policies, welfare for those unable to care for themselves, and protection in the form of national defense.

None of this is a surprise. As Arendt states in her essay “Truth and Politics”, modern ideologies “ openly proclaim them to be political weapons and consider the whole question of truth and truthfulness irrelevant”. Further, “it may be in the nature of the political realm to deny or pervert truth of every kind”. As the nature of truth as such is limiting (in other words, it is what it is) , politicians will naturally bend the truth to fit their purposes. As citizens, we need to be on our guard and strive to identify factual truth or the lack thereof in political pronouncements. But such activity requires substantial effort. Thinking is required, as is the concomitant ability to simultaneously hold two contrasting concepts or points of view in mind. A broad education is required, as is a good facility with language. Sadly for us, most of these requirements and capabilities are now in short supply.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.

June 21, 2012 | Posted By Posted By David Lemberg, M.S., D.C.

It was bound to happen. Last week, Nature reported that a Hungarian company “certified” that a member of parliament did not haveJewish or Roma heritage. It seems we have not come very far at all from the hatreds and behaviors that led to the Nazi atrocities of the 1930s and 1940s. But, of course, 70 years is the merest blip compared to 10,000 or more years of fear of the other.

Is this a problem of science as such? Or is it a problem related to what it means to be a human being, that notorious “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”? Or is this virulent distortion of scientific progress merely what can be expected when the fruits of scientific research are placed in human hands? Modern science was born, asserts Hannah Arendt in her essay The Concept of History, when attention shifted from the search after the “what” to the investigation of “how”. Historically, science was concerned with exploring the natural world. Scientists such as Aristotle categorized, catalogued, and examined phenomena. The overall goal was to improve understanding of man’s place in creation. Investigation of the “how” was activity of an entirely different sort. Now scientists began to pull things apart in attempts to understand how things work.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.

June 11, 2012 | Posted By Bruce D. White, DO, JD

Is helping the lay public better understand how to interpret health information accurately – in the face of widely disseminated misinformation – one of the pressing challenges for today’s bioethicists?

The June 6, 2012 New York Times carried an article that may illustrate this point perfectly: “Abortion Qualms on Morning-After Pill May Be Unfounded.” The article highlights how politics-driven misinformation is so difficult to counter or contradict, even with sound medical and scientific data. Apparently, for some politicians just saying that emergency contraceptives are “abortive pills” is enough to make it so. Of course, there are other recent examples of this phenomenon too, such as Michele Bachmann claiming that HPV vaccine might cause “mental retardation.”

Regardless, if nothing else, clinical ethics is all about informed consent. Informed consent – in a nutshell – is met when the physician shares with the patient information about the working diagnosis, the available intervention options and prognoses, the benefits and burdens of each option (including the possibility of no intervention at all) and the likely outcomes, and the physician and patient – using a shared-decision making model – agree on an immediate course or plan to implement.

The Alden March Bioethics Institute offers graduate online masters in bioethics programs. For more information on the AMBI master of bioethics online program, please visit the AMBI site.

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.