Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query news events press coverage 2014 02 14.

Page not found

You are here

Kathryn Moseley, MD, MPH

CBSSM affiliates will be presenting at the WMU Ethics Center Conference: "Bioethics: Preparing for the Unknown" (March 17-18th).

CBSSM Postdoc Kayte Spector-Bagdady: “The Google of Personalized Healthcare: 23andMe and Enabling the Privatization of Genetic Biobanking"

Lan Le, Natalie Bartnik, Michele C. Gornick and Nicole Exe: “Examining the Psychosocial and Ethical Issues Arising from the Identification, Disclosure and Communication of Genomic Results to Patients and Clinicians,” Chair: Raymond De Vries

Other presentations with CBSSM/UM bioethics connections include:

"Patient Understanding and Satisfaction Regarding the Clinical Use of Whole
Genome Sequencing: Findings from the MedSeq Project," Archana Bharadwaj, School of Public Health

"The Voice is As Mighty as the Pen: Integrating Conversations Into Advance Care
Planning Policies," Kunal Bailoor, UM Medical School

Here is the link to the the program: http://www.mywmu.com/s/1428/images/gid2/editor_documents/events/prelimin...

Here is the link to register: http://www.mywmu.com/s/1428/gid2/index.aspx?sid=1428&gid=2&pgid=2900&con...

Tue, May 07, 2013

Dr. Kathryn Moseley was recently quoted in a Detroit Free Press article, "Proposed law would force hospitals to tell when care won't be given." 

Research Topics: 
Tue, May 21, 2013

Masahito Jimbo was featured in a recent UMHS Press release, "Study finds gaps in “decision aids” designed to help determine right cancer screening option for patients." His study found that despite strong recommendations from the medical community to use these aids to help patients make more well-informed decisions, there is lack of evidence on whether they work – which may lead to fewer doctors using them. (Abstract)

Research Topics: 
Fri, May 08, 2015

Ken Langa discusses how brain crossword puzzles, Sudoku and other brain games are not an evidence-based way to maintain mental sharpness and there is a lack of research in this area.

Research Topics: 

Press Kit

About CBSSM

CBSSM acts at the premier intellectual gathering place of clinicians, social scientists, bioethicists, and all others interested in improving individual and societal health through scholarship and service.

Schedule an Interview

Members of the media interested in interviewing Center members can call the UMHS Public Relations office at 734-764-2220 between the hours 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, or email us directly at cbssm-mgr@umich.edu

Supporting information for: 2017 CBSSM Research Colloquium and Bishop Lecture (Norman Daniels, PhD)


"Setting priorities for Medicaid: The views of minority and underserved communities"
Presenter: Susan Goold, MD, MHSA, MA


Co-authors: Lisa Szymecko, JD, PhD; H. Myra Kim, ScD; Cengiz Salman, MA; A. Mark Fendrick, MD; Edith Kieffer, MPH, PhD; Marion Danis, MD, Zachary Rowe, BBA


Setting priorities for state Medicaid programs challenges policy makers. Engaging beneficiaries affected by tradeoffs could make allocations more just and more sensitive to their needs. 

Academic-community partnerships adapted the simulation exercise CHAT (CHoosing All Together) to engage community members in deliberations about Medicaid spending priorities.  After an informational video about Medicaid, individuals and deliberating groups choose from a menu of spending options constrained by limited resources. We randomly assigned participants from low-income communities throughout Michigan to participate in CHAT with (n=209) or without group deliberations (n=181) in English, Spanish or Arabic. Data collection included pre- and post-CHAT individual priorities and group priorities.

Low-income participants ranged from 18 to 81 years old (Mean 48.3); 61.6% were women. Over half (56.7%) self-identified as white, 30.8% African-American, 17.3% Hispanic, 9.2% Native American, and 12.1% Arab, Arab-American or Chaldean. Most (65.9%) had a chronic condition and 30.3% reported poor or fair health.

Before CHAT, most participants prioritized eligibility consistent with Medicaid expansion. They also prioritized coverage for a broad range of services. Most accepted daily copays for elective hospitalization (71.6% deliberators, 67.9% controls) and restricted access to specialists (60.2% deliberators, 57.4% controls). Deliberators were more likely than controls to increase, after deliberations, what they allocated to mental health care (between arm difference in allocation=0.22, p=.03) and eligibility (between arm difference in allocation=0.18, p=.04). Deliberating groups also prioritized eligibility; only 3 of 22 chose pre-expansion eligibility criteria, and 9 of 22 chose to expand eligibility further.

Members of underserved communities in Michigan put a high priority on Medicaid expansion and broad coverage. When given the opportunity to deliberate about priorities,  participants increased the priority given to expanded eligibility and coverage for mental health services.


"How Acceptable Is Paternalism? A Survey-Based Study of Clinician and Non-clinician Opinions on Decision Making After Life Threatening Stroke"
Presenter: Kunal Bailoor, MD Candidate


Co-authors: Chithra Perumalswami, MD, MSc; Andrew Shuman, MD; Raymond De Vries, PhD; Darin Zahuranec, MD, MS


Complex medical scenarios may benefit from a more paternalistic model of decision making. Yet, clinicians are taught to value patient autonomy, especially at the end-of-life. Little empirical data exist exploring opinions on paternalism.

Methods: A vignette-based survey exploring surrogate decision making after hemorrhagic stroke was administered to clinicians (faculty, residents, and nurses) at an academic health center, and non-clinicians recruited through a university research volunteer website. The cases involved an urgent decision about brain surgery, and a non-urgent decision about continuation of life support one week after stroke. Respondents rated the acceptability of paternalistic decision making, including clinicians not offering or making an explicit recommendation against the treatment, on a 4 point Likert scale.

Results: Of 924 eligible individuals, 818 (649 non-clinicians, 169 clinicians) completed the survey (completion rate 89%).  A minority of respondents (15.3%) found it acceptable not to offer surgery. Most believed it was acceptable to make an explicit recommendation that would likely result in death (73% for avoiding surgery, 69% for stopping the ventilator). Clinicians were more likely than non-clinicians to consider not offering surgery acceptable (30% vs 11%, p<0.0001). Clinicians were more likely to consider recommendations against surgery acceptable (82% vs 71%, p=0.003) and to consider recommendations to discontinue the ventilator acceptable (77% vs 67%, p=0.02). There were no differences between the nurse and physician acceptability ratings (p=0.92).

Conclusions: Clinicians and the lay public differ on the acceptability of paternalistic decision making. Understanding these differences are vital to improving communication between clinicians, patients, and families.


"Ethical Challenges Faced by Providers in Pediatric Death: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis"
Presenter: Stephanie Kukora, MD


Co-authors: Janice Firn, PhD, MSW; Patricia Keefer, MD; Naomi Laventhal, MD, MA
 

Background: Care providers of critically ill patients encounter ethically complex and morally distressing situations in practice. Though ethics committees guide ethical decision-making when conflicts arise in challenging cases, they rarely address routine needs of individual providers. Without ethics education, providers may lack skills necessary to resolve these conflicts or insight to recognize these dilemmas.

Objective: We sought to identify whether providers remark on ethical dilemmas/moral distress without being specifically prompted, when asked to comment on a recent in-hospital pediatric death. We also sought to characterize the nature of dilemmas or distress if found.

Methods: Providers involved in a deceased child’s care in the 24 hours prior to death were electronically surveyed. Questions included demographic information and free-text response. Free-text responses were thematically analyzed in Dedoose.

Results: There were 307 (35%) free-text responses in 879 completed surveys (33% total response rate), regarding the deaths of 138 patients (81% of in-hospital pediatric deaths) from November 2014 to May 2016. Multidisciplinary care team members from diverse hospital units were represented. 52 respondents described ethical challenges and/or moral distress. Disagreement/regret was a major theme, with subthemes of futility, suffering, and “wrong” medical choice made. Failure of shared decision-making was also a major theme, with subthemes of autonomy and best interest, false hope, denial, and misunderstanding/disagreement between the family and medical team. Some providers revealed personal ethical struggles pertaining to their role, including medication provision for pain at the end of life, struggling to be “truthful” while not divulging information inappropriate for their role, and determining when providing comfort care is ethically permissible.

Discussion/Conclusion: Providers experience ethical conflicts with pediatric end-of-life care but may be unwilling or unable to share them candidly. Education assisting staff in identifying and resolving these dilemmas may be helpful. Further support for providers to debrief safely, without criticism or repercussions, may be warranted.


"Capacity for Preferences:  An overlooked criterion for resolving ethical dilemmas with incapacitated patients"
Presenters: Jason Adam Wasserman, PhD; Mark Navin, PhD
 

Clinical bioethics traditionally recognizes a hierarchy of procedural standards for determining a patient’s best plan of care. In broad terms, priority is given first to autonomous patients themselves and then to surrogates who utilize substituted judgments to choose as they believe the patient would have chosen. In the absence of good information about what the patient would have wanted, clinical ethicists typically retreat to the “best interest” standard, which represents a relatively objective assessment designed to maximize benefits and/or minimize harms.  In this paper, we argue that “capacity for preferences” is a conceptually distinct and morally salient procedural standard for determining a patient’s best plan of care.  We build our argument on the grounds that 1) that many patients who lack decisional capacity can nevertheless reliably express preferences (an empirical claim); 2) these preferences are distinct from best interest and not reducible to best interest considerations; 3) that capacity for preferences, at a minimum, has moral valence for situations in which best interest is undetermined (and we argue this happens more frequently than commonly recognized); and, finally, 4) that capacity for preferences in incapacitated patients lacking reliable or valid surrogates might even subvert a best interest course of action in some cases.  Some precedent for our analysis can be found in the concept of pediatric assent. However, the idea that patient preferences matter morally has broad application for adult patients, including for those with advanced dementia and other mental illnesses that preclude capacity for decision-making.

Peter A. Ubel, MD

Alumni

Peter Ubel, MD, is a physician and behavioral scientist whose research and writing explores the quirks in human nature that influence people's lives — the mixture of rational and irrational forces that affect health, happiness and the way society functions.

Dr. Ubel is Professor of Marketing and Public Policy at Duke University. He was Professor of Medicine and Psychology at the University of Michigan, where he taught from 2000 to 2010, and from 2005-2010, served as the Director of the Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine.

Last Name: 
Ubel

Erica Sutton, PhD

Alumni

Dr. Erica Sutton was a CBSSM Postdoctoral Research Fellow, 2013-2015. She is an interdisciplinary social scientist engaged in social and behavioral science research that explores the health care experiences of individuals living with rare genetic conditions; the manner in which biotechnologies shape personal experience and social life; and the ethical implications of these technologies for individuals, public health, social policy, health care institutions, and communities.

Last Name: 
Sutton

Panel: Sexual Harassment in Medicine

Mon, November 12, 2018, 4:00pm to 5:30pm
Add to Calendar
Location: 
Biomedical Science Research Building - Kahn Auditorium

Sexual Harassment in Medicine

Welcome by Mark Schlissel, President of the University of Michigan

PANELISTS :
- Paula Johnson, President of Wellesley College, Chairperson of the National Academies committee, and member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine
- Reshma Jagsi, Professor and Deputy Chair in the Department of Radiation Oncology at Michigan Medicine and Director of the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, U-M

REPORT SUMMARY & MODERATION:
- Lilia Cortina,* Associate Director of ADVANCE for the College of LSA; Professor of Psychology, Women’s Studies, and Management and Organizations, U-M
- Anna Kirkland,* Director of the Institute for Research on Women and Gender; Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Women’s Studies, U-M

In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine assembled a committee to conduct a study on the impact of sexual harassment in academia on the career advancement of women in the scientific, technical, and medical workforce. The committee published a comprehensive report titled, "Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine," in June 2018. The report identifies key findings on the causes and impacts of sexual harassment, and recommendations for institutional policies, strategies, and practices to address and prevent it.

Preventing and effectively addressing sexual harassment of women in colleges and universities has remained a challenge for decades. More than half of women faculty and staff report having been harassed. Student surveys of university systems show disturbingly similar rates, with 20–50% of women students experiencing sexually harassing behavior perpetrated by faculty or staff.

Persistent sexual harassment in STEM fields, and its adverse impacts on women’s careers, jeopardizes progress in closing the gender gap, damages research integrity, and results in a costly loss of talent. Academic sciences, engineering, and medicine share characteristics that create conditions for harassment, but many findings of the report are not limited to STEM field settings. Other fields within academia can be similarly male-dominated, hierarchical work and learning settings in which abusive cultures may form. Such environments can silence and limit the career opportunities for both the targets of the sexual harassment and bystanders, causing both men and women to leave their fields.

This panel will include a summary of the report, discussion from the report’s co-authors, commentary from disciplinary experts, and Q&A with the audience.

The panel will offer broad discussion of use to any member of the university community or the public interested in sexual harassment in academia. A reception will follow.

Sexual Harassment in the Academy Panel Discussion Series is presented by IRWG and the Office of Research, with co-sponsorship from: ADVANCE, The Office for Health Equity and Inclusion, the College of Literature Sciences, and the Arts, and the College of Engineering

Questions or for accessibility information, please contact irwg@umich.edu or (734) 764-9537.

Pages