Obama Calls Health-Care Reform “Ethical Obligation”
Aug 24th, 2009 • Posted in: News In other news dealing with public health and morality, economist raises questions about access to end-of-life options, and researcher offers unexpected risk-benefit analysis of already controversial vaccine
WASHINGTON
Ethics issues related to public health figured in last week’s top news stories. Among them:
- President Obama put the quest for health-care reform in moral terms last week, calling reform an ethical obligation. MarketWatch reports that Obama, facing an increasingly charged political environment, acted on a plan to shift gears and promote and defend his legislation on moral grounds. Speaking to a gathering of religious leaders, Obama said that rumors about the plan have been spread by those who are “bearing false witness,” according to the MarketWatch report.
- The question of who should have access to new medical technology designed to prolong what’s left of a dying patient’s life is one of the most ethically troubling parts of public health policy, according to a New York Times piece by economist Uwe E. Reinhardt. If expensive treatment that adds only a few months of life “is indeed a worthwhile use of funds for the very sick,” Reinhardt questions, “should all patients have the right to receive it even if they can’t afford it? Should Medicaid or Medicare cover the cost of the drug for the poor, if other richer, but equally sick, patients can pay for it out of their own pockets?”
- A vaccine for a sexually transmitted virus linked to the eventual development of cervical cancer continued to cause controversy last week as a researcher who helped develop the drug warned that young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings before being vaccinated, reports CBS News. Dr. Diane Harper carried out many of the studies employed in the approval process for Gardasil and has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck, the company marketing the drug. In a highly controversial move, federal health authorities recently recommended that the HPV vaccine be given to girls as young as 11. Some parents have objected, saying it is beyond the purview of the government to recommend that shots be given in order to head off a disease transmitted by sexual activity. Harper’s questions focus on the ethical implications of the risk-vs.-benefit profile, according to the CBS report. “If we vaccinate eleven-year olds and the protection doesn’t last … we’ve put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit,” Harper told CBS News. “The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for at least 15 years, and over 70% of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated.”
Sources: CBS News, Aug. 19 — New York Times, Aug. 19 — MarketWatch, Aug. 17.
For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Aug. 17 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 10 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 3 — Related Newsline story, July 27 — Related Newsline story, July 20.
Print This Story
Email This Story
[...] more information, see: Related Newsline story, Aug. 24 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 27, 2008 — Related Newsline story, July [...]
[...] more information, see: Related Newsline story, Aug. 24 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 10 — Related Newsline story, July 27 [...]