Dr. Sandberg is a pediatric psychologist and clinical researcher. As a pediatric psychologist, he delivers psychoeducational and behavioral health services to persons with endocrine disorders and their families, in particular, conditions affecting linear growth or disorders of sex development (DSD), i.e., congenital conditions in which development of sex chromosomes, gonads or sex anatomy is atypical.
Page not found
Carl Schneider, JD -- “Can Informed-Consent Laws Work? Evaluating Compelled Disclosure as a Method of Regulation”
Abstract: The law of informed consent is an example of a form of legal regulation called mandated disclosure. In such regulation, one party to a transaction is required to give the other party to the transaction information to use in making decisions about the parties’ relationship. There are hundreds of examples of such legal rules besides medical informed consent. This talk asks how well these rules have worked outside medicine. It concludes that there is little evidence that those rules ever work, explores some of the reasons for this surprising failure, and asks what the failure of mandated disclosure outside medicine tells us about the success of informed-consent laws in medicine.
Paul Lichter, MD
The Medical-Industrial Complex is alive and well and has been that way for decades. The Complex depends on strong cooperation from physicians. Not only do physicians help industry to develop drugs and devices, they then take part in selling them to their fellow physicians. The physician-as-drug-rep is driven by money and by the culture of reciprocity in our society. This talk will review the foundations of the Medical-Industrial Complex and the reasons why it is able to control a great deal of medical practice in our country. Physicians rarely if ever believe they are biased and Industry works hard to enforce that belief. Money provided by Industry to physicians in essence creates a contract, however subtle, whereby physicians will sell drugs and devices for Industry. We will discuss the ethical issues surrounding physician-industry relationships as part of the Medical-Industrial Complex.
Anna Kirkland, JD, PhD Title – "The Vaccine Injury Compensation Court and Its Critics"
Presenter – Anna Kirkland, JD, PhD, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Women's Studies and Political Science, University of Michigan
Abstract: The so-called vaccine court is a small special court in the United States Court of Federal Claims that handles controversial claims that a vaccine has harmed someone. The government steps in as the defendant and vaccine manufacturers are protected from liability. In this court, lawyers, activists, judges, doctors, and scientists come together, sometimes arguing bitterly, trying to figure out whether a vaccine really caused a person’s medical problem. Drawing on her recently published book, Vaccine Court: The Law and Politics of Injury (NYU Press, 2016), Prof. Anna Kirkland will discuss the ethical controversies surrounding the vaccine court, from the perspective of anti-vaccine movement activists as well as from the mainstream.
The Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM) Research Colloquium was held Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at the Founders Room, Alumni Center, 200 Fletcher St., Ann Arbor, MI.
The CBSSM Research Colloquium featured the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics as the keynote address. Lawrence O. Gostin, J.D., LL.D (Hon.) presented the Bishop Lecture with a talk entitled: "Law, Ethics, and Public Health in the Vaccination Debates: Politics of the Measles Outbreak."
Lawrence Gostin is University Professor, Georgetown University’s highest academic rank conferred by the University President. Prof. Gostin directs the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law and is the Founding O’Neill Chair in Global Health Law. He is Professor of Medicine at Georgetown University, Professor of Public Health at the Johns Hopkins University, and Director of the Center for Law & the Public’s Health at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown Universities. Prof. Gostin is also the Director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on Public Health Law & Human Rights.
The 2015 Research Colloquium Presentation Schedule:
- 8:30 AM -- Check in & refreshments
- 9:00 AM -- Welcome
- 9:15 AM -- Aaron Scherer, PhD, CBSSM Postdoctoral Fellow: "Elephants, Donkeys, and Medicine: Political Differences in Health Risk Perceptions and Adherence to Medical Recommendations"
- 9:45 AM -- Natalie Bartnik, MPH, Research Associate, HBHE Genetics Research Group, UM School of Public Health: "Why, how and when oncologists disclose genome sequencing results in clinical practice"
- 10:15 AM -- Michele Gornick, PhD, MICHR PTSP Postdoctoral Fellow, VA HSRD Fellow & CBSSM Research Investigator: "Information and deliberation make a difference: The public’s preferences for the return of secondary genomic findings"
- 10:45 AM -- Break
- 11:00 AM -- Lawrence O. Gostin, JD, LLD (Hon.), 2015 Bishop Lecture in Bioethics: "Law, Ethics, and Public Health in the Vaccination Debates: Politics of the Measles Outbreak"
- 12:30 PM -- Lunch
- 1:30 PM -- Stephanie Kukora, MD and Nathan Gollehon, MD, Fellows, Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, UM Mott Children’s Hospital: "Epidemiology of outpatient prenatal consultation: implications for decision-making and perinatal outcomes"
- 2:00 PM -- Minnie Bluhm, PhD, MPH, Assistant Professor, School of Health Sciences, Eastern Michigan University: "Oncologists' decisions about administering late chemotherapy: What makes it so difficult?"
- 2:30 PM -- Break
- 2:45 PM -- Danielle Czarnecki, PhD Candidate, UM Department of Sociology: "Moral Women, Immoral Technologies: How Devout Women Negotiate Maternal Desires, Religion, and Assisted Reproductive Technologies"
- 3:15 PM -- Uchenna Ezeibe, MD, Resident Physician, UMHS Department of Pediatrics & Communicable Diseases: "Pediatric Ethics Consultation Service at a Tertiary Hospital: A Retrospective Review"
The 2017 Bishop Lecture in Bioethics was presented by Norman Daniels, PhD, Mary B Saltonstall Professor and Professor of Ethics and Population Health in the Department of Global Health and Population at Harvard School of Public Health. Dr. Daniels presented a talk entitled, "Universal Access vs. Universal Coverage: Two models of what we should aim for." The Bishop Lecture served as the keynote address during the CBSSM Research Colloquium.
Abstract: We contrast two models of health care insurance, the Universal Coverage model underlying the Affordable Care Act and the Universal Access model underlying the (now withdrawn) American Health Care Act. Our goal is to evaluate the strongest argument for the Universal Access model. That model suggests that if people have real choices about health care insurance, some will buy it and some will not, and no one should be mandated to buy it. We argue that the Universal Access model presupposes that people can afford insurance, and that means subsidizing it for millions of people as the Universal Coverage model underlying the ACA does. These costs aside, the strongest argument for the Universal Access model is that giving people true choice may make the population level of well-being higher. Some people will have other priorities that they prefer to pursue, especially if they can free ride by enjoying the benefits of a system that provides health care without their contributing to it. If the additional costs that third parties have to pay as a result of the increase in real choice are significant, then the strongest argument for Universal access fails: the benefits of choosing not to be insured are outweighed by the imposed costs on others from these choices.
Norman Daniels, PhD is Mary B. Saltonstall Professor of Population Ethics and Professor of Ethics and Population Health in the Department of Global Health and Population at the Harvard School of Public Health. Formerly chair of the Philosophy Department at Tufts University, his most recent books include Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly (Cambridge, 2008); Setting Limits Fairly: Learning to Share Resources for Health, 2nd edition, (Oxford, 2008); From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice (2000); Is Inequality Bad for Our Health? (2000); and Identified versus Statistical Lives (Oxford 2015). He has published 200 peer-reviewed articles and as many book chapters, editorials, and book reviews. His research is on justice and health policy, including priority setting in health systems, fairness and health systems reform, health inequalities, and intergenerational justice. A member of the IOM, a Fellow of the Hastings Center, and formerly on the ethics advisory boards of the CDC and the CIHR, he directs the Ethics concentration of the Health Policy PhD at Harvard and recently won the Everett Mendelsohn Award for mentoring graduate students.
- Click here for the video recording of the 2017 Bishop Lecture.
The 2018 Bishop Lecture in Bioethics was presented by Barbara Koenig, PhD, Professor of Bioethics and Medical Anthropology and Director of UCSF Bioethics at the University of California, San Francisco. Professor Koenig presented a talk entitled, " Does Enhancing Individual Choice and Control Promote Freedom? Challenges in Contemporary Bioethics." The Bishop Lecture serves as the keynote address during the CBSSM Research Colloquium.
Abstract: Over the past three decades, the discipline of bioethics has advocated for enhanced patient choice and control over a range of medical decisions, from care near the end of life to participation in clinical research. Using two current policy challenges in California—1) the advent of legally sanctioned medical aid in dying and, 2) efforts to share UC Health “big data” from the electronic health record in research with private sector partners—Professor Koenig will explore how current bioethics practices may unintentionally and ironically impede our shared goals of promoting human freedom.
Click here for the video recording of the 2018 Bishop Lecture.
Funded by Department of Health and Human Services - National Institutes of Health Subcontracts
Funding Years: 2014.
Promoting physical activity and decreasing sedentary behavior are key goals in the fight against cancers; physical activity is associated with lower risk of several cancers [1-10], and lower overall morbidity and mortality [11-26]. Thus, theory-driven initiatives to change these behaviors are essential [1-10, 26-40]. PQ#3 highlights the necessity for new perspectives on the interplay of cognitive and emotional factors in promoting behavior change. Current theories, which focus primarily on predictors derived from self-report measures, do not fully predict behavior change. For example, recent meta-analyses suggest that on average, variables from the Theory of Planned Behavior account for ~27% of the variance in behavior change [41, 42]. This limits our ability to design optimally effective interventions , and invites new methods that may explain additional variance. Our team has shown that neural activation in response to health messages in hypothesized neural regions of interest can double the explained variance in behavior change, above and beyond self-reports of attitudes, intentions, and self-efficacy [44, 45]. We now propose a next leap, inspired by PQ3, to identify how cognitive and affective processes interact in the brain to influence and predict behavior change. Our core hypothesis is that the balance of neural activity in regions associated with self-related processing versus defensive counterarguing is key in producing health behavior change, and that self-affirmation (an innovative approach, relatively new to the health behavior area ) can alter this balance. Self-affirmation theory  posits that people are motivated to maintain a sense of self-worth, and that threats to self-worth will be met with resistance, often i the form of counterarguing. One common threat to self-worth occurs when people are confronted with self-relevant health messages (e.g. encouraging less sedentary behavior in overweight, sedentary adults). This phenomenon speaks to a classic and problematic paradox: those at highest risk are likely to be most defensive and least open to altering cancer risk behaviors . A substantial, and surprisingly impressive, body of evidence demonstrates that affirmation of core-values (self-affirmation priming) preceding messages can reduce resistance and increase intervention effectiveness [46, 49-53]. Uncovering neural mechanisms of such affirmation effects , has transformative potential for intervention design and selection. To test our conceptual assumptions and core hypothesis we will: (1) Identify neural signals associated with processing health messages as self-relevant versus counterarguing; (2) Test whether self-affirmation alters the balance of these signals; (3) Use these neural signals to predict physical activity behavior change, above and beyond what is predicted by self-report measures alone. Our approach is innovative methodologically (using fMRI to understand and predict behavior change), and conceptually (self-affirmation may dramatically increase intervention effectiveness). Benchmarks will include objectively measured decreases in sedentary behavior in affirmed vs. control subjects (using accelerometers), and increases in predictive capacity afforded by neuroimaging methods, compared to self-report alone.
PI(s): Thad Polk
Co-I(s): Lawrence An, Sonya Dal Sin, Kenneth Resnicow, Victor Strecher
What's the difference between opting in and opting out of an activity? Who decides if people will be put automatically into one category or another? Click this interactive decision to learn how default options work.
Imagine that you're a US Senator and that you serve on the Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The Infectious Diseases Society of America has come before your committee because they believe that too many health care workers are getting sick with influenza ("flu") each year and infecting others. As a result, your Senate committee is now considering a new bill that would require that all health care workers get annual influenza vaccinations ("flu shots") unless the worker specifically refuses this vaccination in writing.
Do you think you would support this bill for mandatory flu shots for health care workers?
Imagine that you're the human resources director at a mid-sized company that's initiating an employee retirement plan. Management is concerned that many employees are not saving enough for retirement. They're considering a policy that would automatically deduct retirement contributions from all employees' wages unless the employee fills out and submits a form requesting exemption from the automatic deductions.
Do you think a policy of automatic retirement deductions is reasonable for your company to follow?
Organ transplants save many lives each year, but there are always too many deserving patients and too few organs available. To try to improve the number of organs available for donation, the state legislature in your state is considering a new policy that all people who die under certain well-defined circumstances will have their organs donated to others. The system would start in three years, after an information campaign. People who do not want to have their organs donated would be given the opportunity to sign a refusal of organ donation when they renewed their drivers' licenses or state ID cards, which expire every three years. Citizens without either of these cards could also sign the refusal at any drivers' license office in the state. This is a policy similar to ones already in place in some European countries.
Does this seem like an appropriate policy to you?
How do your answers compare?
For many decisions in life, people encounter default options-that is, events or conditions that will be set in place if they don't actively choose an alternative. Some default options have clear benefits and are relatively straightforward to implement, such as having drug prescriptions default to "generic" unless the physician checks the "brand necessary" box. Others are more controversial, such as the automatic organ donation issue that you made a decision about.
Default options can strongly influence human behavior. For example, employees are much more likely to participate in a retirement plan if they're automatically enrolled (and must ask to be removed, or opt out) than if they must actively opt in to the plan. Researchers have found a number of reasons for this influence of default options, including people's aversion to change.
But default options can seem coercive also. So, an Institute of Medicine committee recently recommended against making organ donation automatic in the US. One reason was the committee's concern that Americans might not fully understand that they could opt out of donation or exactly how they could do so.
The policy scenarios presented to you here have been excerpted from a 2007 article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled "Harnessing the Power of Default Options to Improve Health Care," by Scott D. Halpern, MD, PhD, Peter A. Ubel, MD, and David A. Asch, MD, MBA. Dr. Ubel is the Director of the Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine.
This article provides guidance for policy-makers in setting default options, specifically in health care. Generally, default options in health care are intended to promote the use of interventions that improve care, reduce the use of interventions that put patients at risk, or serve broader societal agendas, such as cost containment.
In this NEJM article, the researchers argue that default options are often unavoidable-otherwise, how would an emergency-room physician decide on care for an uninsured patient? Many default options already exist but are hidden. Without either returning to an era of paternalism in medicine or adopting a laissez-faire approach, the authors present ways to use default options wisely but actively, based on clear findings in the medical literature.
Some examples of default policies that may improve health care quality:
- routine HIV testing of all patients unless they opt out.
- removal of urinary catheters in hospital patients after 72 hours unless a nurse or doctor documents why the catheter should be retained.
- routine ventilation of all newly intubated patients with lung-protective settings unless or until other settings are ordered.
Drs. Halpern, Ubel, and Asch conclude, "Enacting policy changes by manipulating default options carries no more risk than ignoring such options that were previously set passively, and it offers far greater opportunities for benefit."
Read the article:
Harnessing the power of default options to improve health care.
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Asch DA. New England Journal of Medicine 2007;357:1340-1344.