Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query news events press coverage 2017 03 20.

Page not found

You are here

Kathryn Moseley served as one of the judges at "The Big Ethical Question Slam 5" hosted by a2ethics.org. In addition, Naomi Laventhal, Michele Gornick, Christian Vercler, Lauren Smith, and Lauren Wancata served as judges at the "Michigan Highschool Ethics Bowl 2."

Thanks to all the CBSSM folks who contributed their time!

For more information about these events and other great ethics-related activites, go to a2ethics.org.

A short video about the Highschool Ethics Bowl can be found here.

Does order matter when distributing resources? (Jun-03)

Should people with more severe health problems receive state funding for treatment before people with less severe health problems? See how your opinion compares with the opinions of others.

Imagine that you are a government official responsible for deciding how state money is spent on different medical treatments. Your budget is limited so you cannot afford to offer treatment to everyone who might benefit. Right now, you must choose to spend money on one of two treatments.

  • Treatment A treats a life threatening illness. It saves patients' lives and returns them to perfect health after treatment
  • Treatment B treats a different life threatening illness. It saves patients' lives but is not entirely effective and leaves them with paraplegia after treatment. These patients are entirely normal before their illness but after treatment will have paraplegia.

Suppose the state has enough money to offer Treatment A to 100 patients. How many patients would have to offered Treatment B so that you would have difficulty choosing which treatment to offer?

How do your answers compare?

The average person said that it would become difficult to decide which treatment to offer when 1000 people were offered Treatment B.

What if you had made another comparison before the one you just made?

In the study, some people were asked to make a comparison between saving the lives of otherwise-healthy people and saving the lives of people who already had paraplegia. After they made that comparison, they made the comparison you just completed. The average person in that group said it would take 126 people offered Treatment B to make the decision difficult. The differences are shown in the graph below

Why is this important?

The comparison you made is an example of a person tradeoff (PTO). The PTO is one method used to find out the utilities of different health conditions. These utilities are basically measures of the severities of the conditions. More severe conditions have a lower utility, and less severe conditions have a higher utility, on a scale of 0 to 1. Insurance companies, the government, and other organizations use these utilities as a way to decide which group to funnel money into for treatments.

On the surface, it seems like basing the money division on the severity of a condition is a good and fair method, since theoretically the people who are in the greatest need will be treated first. However, the PTO raises issues of fairness and equity that aren't accounted for in other utility elicitation methods like the time tradeoff (TTO) and rating scale (RS).

For example, when asked to decide how many people with paraplegia would have to be saved to equal saving 100 healthy people, many people say 100; that is, they think it is equally important to save the life of someone with paraplegia and a healthy person. Going by values obtained using the TTO or RS, an insurance company may conclude that 160 people with paraplegia (using a utility of .6) would have to be saved to make it equal to saving 100 healthy people. This would mean that less benefit would be gotten by saving someone with paraplegia, and thus they might not cover expenses for lifesaving treatments for people with paraplegia as much as they would for a healthy person. The PTO shows that many people would not agree with doing this, even though their own responses to other utility questions generated the policy in the first place.

For more information see:

Ubel PA, Richardson J, Baron J. Exploring the role of order effects in person trade-off elicitations. Health Policy, 61(2):189-199, 2002.

Bioethics Grand Rounds: Musical Event "When Death Comes Callin"

Wed, October 26, 2016, 12:00pm
Location: 
UH Ford Amphitheater & Lobby

When Death Comes Callin': Songs and Reflections About Death

Charlotte DeVries, Jeanne Mackey, Merilynne Rush, and friends offer a program of songs and brief readings reflecting various perspectives on death - humorous, sad, thoughtful, and quirky.

Lunch is provided on a first-come, first-served basis.

Mon, October 30, 2017

In a recent US Department of Health and Human Services symposium, Andrew Shuman discussed patient data privacy.

Check out the Ethics Path available to Michigan medical students through the Paths of Excellence (PoE) program. The ethics path provides opportunities for individualized, independent study, combined with field work with CBSSM, and a capstone project in the M4 year.

Click here for more information about the PoE program.

Research Topics: 
Mon, June 23, 2014

Brian Zikmund-Fisher was interviewed by Reuters Health for the article "Shared decision making still lacking for cancer screening." He discusses his research and trade-offs in cancer screenings. "What this study does is it shows that despite all of the initiatives and the discussion of shared decision making that has been going on, we don't seem to be moving the needle very much," he states. 

His interview also received press in the Chicago Tribune and New York Daily News.

Michael Volk, MSc, MD

Alumni

Michael Volk was an Assistant Professor of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at the University of Michigan. His clinical practice focuses on the care of patients with liver disease, including those undergoing liver transplantation and those with hepatocellular carcinoma. His research interests focus on the ethics of resource allocation, patient and physician decision making, and chronic disease management. In particular, he has conducted a series of studies designed to improve the way decisions are made about using high risk liver transplant organs.

Last Name: 
Volk

Megan Knaus, MPH

Research Associate

Megan joined CBSSM in 2014 and has worked on multiple grant funded research projects related to health communication, patient-provider decision making, and health interventions driven by behavioral economics. She currently works with Dr. Brian Zikmund-Fisher on a National Science Foundation grant testing infectious disease communication strategies.

Last Name: 
Knaus

CBSSM Seminar: Rana Awdish, MD

Thu, February 15, 2018, 3:00pm
Location: 
NCRC, Building 16, Room 266C

Dr. Rana Awdish is the author of In Shock, a memoir based on her own critical illness. She is also Director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Program at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and a practicing Critical Care Physician. She lectures to physicians, health care leaders and medical schools across the country on the necessity of compassionate care. She was recently named Medical Director of Care Experience for the Health System.

In Shock will describe Dr. Awdish's personal transformation from critical care physician to critically ill patient and describe how the events surrounding her near death changed her understanding of the culture of medicine and lead her to alter the course of her institution. Focusing on Physician communication training, narrative medicine and visual thinking strategies, and a culture of caring, she will illuminate the path towards creating a more resilient culture for everyone involved in health care.

 Objectives:

1. Describe the ecosystem of medical training and practice and the way it compromises empathy and compassion.

2. Illustrate how medical humanities and a purpose driven culture can be used to promote a culture of resilience.

3. Recognize the barriers to implementing institutional change and empowering individuals.

4. Identify practices that will engage providers and leaders in promoting development of resilient systems.

Rana Awdish, MD
Director, Pulmonary Hypertension Program, Henry Ford Hospital, and Medical Director, Care Experience, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI

Dr. Rana Awdish is the Director of the Pulmonary Hypertension Program at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and a Critical Care Physician. She also serves as Medical Director of Care Experience for the Henry Ford Health System. Dr. Awdish’s mandate as well as her passion is to improve the patient experience across the system. 

After suffering a sudden critical illness herself in 2008, she has become a tireless activist, refocusing her fellow providers on the patient experience and improving empathy through connection and communication. She lectures to physicians, hospital leadership and medical schools around the country. Her book, In Shock: My Journey from Death to Recovery and the Redemptive Power of Hope, has been featured in the Washington Post, NPR, The Today Show, The Times Literary Supplement, and is now an LA Times Bestseller.

Dr. Awdish received the Schwartz Center’s National Compassionate Caregiver of the Year Award in 2017. She was named Physician of the Year by Press Ganey in 2017 for her work on improving communication, and received the Critical Care Teaching Award in 2016. She, along with three others, began the CLEAR Conversations Project at Henry Ford, using improvisational actors to train physicians in patient-centered empathic communication. 

Prior to coming to Henry Ford, Dr. Awdish completed her training at Mount Sinai Beth Israel in Manhattan. She attended Wayne State University Medical School, and completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. She is board-certified in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine.

Pages