Timothy R. B. Johnson, M.D. served as Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Michigan from 1993-2017. He is Bates Professor of the Diseases of Women and Children; and also Arthur F. Thurnau Professor; Professor, Women’s Studies, and Research Professor, Center for Human Growth and Development. His education and training have been at the University of Michigan, University of Virginia and Johns Hopkins.
Page not found
The Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM) Research Colloquium will be held Wednesday, May 22, 2019 in Forum Hall, Palmer Commons, 100 Washtenaw Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
The CBSSM Research Colloquium will feature the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics as the keynote address. Ruha Benjamin, PhD will present the Bishop Lecture with a talk entitled: “Black Afterlives Matter: Reimagining Bioethics for an Ailing Body Politic."
Ruha Benjamin is Associate Professor of African American Studies at Princeton University, where she serves on the executive committees of the Center for Digital Humanities and Center for Global Health and Health Policy, and is an Associate Faculty member in the Center for Information Technology Policy, Center for Health and Wellbeing, Program in History of Science, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program, and Department of Sociology.
Ruha’s work investigates the social dimensions of science and technology with a focus on the relationship between innovation and inequity, health and justice, knowledge and power.
She is the author of People’s Science: Bodies and Rights on the Stem Cell Frontier (Stanford University Press 2013); Race After Technology (Polity 2019); and editor of Captivating Technology: Reimagining Race, Carceral Technoscience, and Liberatory Imagination in Everyday Life (Duke University Press 2019) among numerous other publications.
Ruha is also the recipient of fellowships from the American Council of Learned Societies, National Science Foundation, and Institute for Advanced Study among others, and in 2017 she received the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching at Princeton.
For more info, please visit ruhabenjamin.com
The CBSSM Research Colloquium (9 a.m. to 2 p.m.) brings together presenters highlighting research related to bioethics, health communication, and medical decision making.
A call for presentation abstracts will be sent out in February.
2019 Colloquium Schedule (tentative):
- 8:30 Check in, refreshments
- 9:05 Welcome
- 9:10 Presentation 1
- 9:35 Presentation 2
- 10:00 Medical Student in Ethics Award: Megan Lane
- 10:10 Presentation 3
- 10:35 Presentation 4
- 11:00 Break
- 11:15 Bishop Lecture: Ruha Benjamin, PhD
- 12:45 Lunch in Great Lakes Central, Palmer Commons
This will be the first year that CBSSM will be participating in Researchpalooza. Please come and enjoy the fun!
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
11:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
Circle Drive in front of Med Sci I
All UMHS employees from the Hospitals and Health Centers and Medical School are invited to celebrate this annual event.
Stop by the University Hospital Courtyard and Medical School Circle Drive for:
- Ice Cream sundaes and sugar-free alternatives
- Karaoke and musical entertainment
- Festival Games
- Department and vendor tables with information and giveaways
Susan Goold, MD, MHSA, MA, FACP Title: “Trust me, I’m an Accountable Care Organization”
Abstract: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) are a new form of health care organization in which a network of health care providers is given a financial incentive to reduce total costs of care while meeting certain quality benchmarks for a defined patient group. What are the moral responsibilities of such organizations, if any? How might ACOs and those who work in them care for patients in an accountable, trustworthy way?
What is the impact of medical advertising that is directly targeted at patients? What information do consumers of medical products and therapies need in order to make informed decisions about their health?
Consider the following:
Ms. J, a healthy 50-year old woman, drives by a billboard that advertises low-dose spiral computed tomography (CT) scanning to screen for lung cancer. Although she has no family history of cancer and has never smoked, several of Ms. J’s friends have been diagnosed with cancer recently. She worries that she herself may have an undetected malignancy.
Responding to this advertising, Ms. J decides to pay out-of-pocket for a CT scan at the imaging center advertised on the billboard. The radiologist at this imaging center profits from the number of scans interpreted. As a result of the CT scan, an abnormality is found, and Ms. J undergoes a biopsy of her lung. A complication occurs from this procedure, but Ms. J recovers, and the biopsy comes back negative. She is relieved to learn that she does not have lung cancer.
After reading this scenario and thinking about direct-to consumer medical advertising, which of the following statements best represents your views?
- STATEMENT A: Direct-to-consumer advertising improves patient education and patient-physician communication. Such advertising informs and empowers patients, so that their health care better reflects their needs and values. In particular, certain health services require complex medical equipment with high capital costs. Physicians who invest in such equipment do so because they believe in its promise, and they deserve payment to recoup their investment.
- STATEMENT B: Direct-to-consumer advertising often results in misunderstanding, increased costs, and disruption of the patient-physician relationship. Such advertising can skew information to portray products in a positive light and can prey upon patients’ fears. Physicians closely allied with a treatment cannot offer objective assessment to patients about the efficacy or risks of the treatment. Further, most patients are ignorant of the financial incentives to physicians for various procedures.
- STATEMENT C: I have not formed a viewpoint on direct-to-consumer medical advertising.
How do your answers compare?
CBDSM's Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, has written a powerful challenge to the medical profession and medical industries in a recent issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Jagsi argues that the increasing proliferation of direct-to-patient advertising has raised questions of how physicians can function as unbiased intermediaries between patients and industry.
In the article, she presents six case studies, one of which has been excerpted and adapted for this Decision of the Month. Dr. Jagsi uses these case studies to address serious issues related to both advertising and conflict of interest. Some examples:
- What implications does the frequently used advertising directive "Ask your doctor about X" have for the doctor-patient relationship?
- How ethical is it to disguise medical advertising—for instance, to hire celebrities to discuss treatments during interviews?
- Should a physician who prescribes a particular medical device be allowed to receive payment from the speakers' bureau of a company that produces that medical device?
- Should a physician who holds an ownership interest in an expensive treatment machine be required to explain alternate treatments to patients?
- When does a website about a medical treatment cross over from being informational to being promotional?
Dr. Jagsi argues that physicians have a strong ethical responsibility to their patients to call attention to potential conflicts of interest and to help interpret medical information in the best interests of their patients.
For more details about this study:
Vaccine refusal has an impact on public health; however, research has shown that it is very difficult to change attitudes towards vaccines. People are often hesitant about vaccines because they don’t trust that potential harms are documented and reported. The question is: how can we increase trust and vaccine utilization?