A Reasonable and Virtuous Response to a Pandemic

Comments open through April 9

Bioethics in the News logoThis post is a part of our Bioethics in the News series

By Larissa Fluegel, MD, MHS

Within five days of the first two registered cases here in Michigan, social media traffic about COVID-19 visibly ramped up, with a significant amount of COVID-19-related posts on my news feeds. This was the same for my friends. People were posting photos of entire local store aisles almost empty. I went to the store and to my astonishment, checkout lanes had long lines of individuals with carts filled with toilet paper, water, and hand sanitizer. Every single cart looked the same. I thought, what is happening? The apocalypse? Where have the virtues of altruism and selflessness gone? Anyway, this blog is not about toilet paper or human responses to fear, but about the question of what is safe, appropriate, and virtuous to do at the individual level, all things considered.

no-toilet-paper-flickr-raed-mansour

Image description: Empty shelves that normally contain toilet paper in a Walgreens store, shared on March 13, 2020. Image source: Raed Mansour/Flickr Creative Commons.

What we know.

  • This is a new virus. The fact that it is new means that humans lack the immunity to mount a quick and sufficiently strong response to clear the virus before it causes disease.
  • Based on all 72,314 cases in the Chinese population, most (80.9%) are ‘mild’ respiratory flu-like (but also gastrointestinal); 4.7% turn critical and 2% are fatal.
  • Severity and risk of death increase with age and with pre-existing conditions.
  • There is a two to fourteen-day incubation time (this is the period of time from when the virus first enters one’s body and the time one shows symptoms).
  • Mild soap and water used as recommended are highly effective in eliminating the virus.
  • There is no effective treatment or vaccine against the virus yet.
  • Michigan’s Governor declared a state of emergency on March 10 and mandated all Michiganders to stay home as of March 23. This state of emergency declaration is not intended to cause panic, but instead is to allow the State to quickly deploy resources to support local responses in combatting the spread. This also is done to avoid overwhelming the healthcare system, where patients are being treated in hospital hallways, cared for by exhausted healthcare workers who might be pressed to decide which patients warrant oxygen assistance and which die.

Why do we want to stop the spread?

What we really hope to achieve is to flatten the curve of the spread. The goal is to decrease the rate of infection so that too many people don’t get sick at the same time, going beyond our current health care system’s capacity to safely and effectively treat. By doing so, we protect our fellow citizens. How? By preserving access to necessary medical resources.

What do these things mean to us?

We should understand that eventually we might all get sick. We must not make decisions based on fear. We instead should make decisions based on what we know about the virus and its spread, i.e., the facts and recommendations from reputable health authorities like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who are carefully monitoring and studying the situation, while avoiding unsupported advice appearing on social media. This is ethical, responsible, and virtuous behavior.

When public health officials strongly recommend that we stay home, we follow their recommendations to the best of our ability because this helps save lives. Remember the issue is no longer about us individually but about us as a community and a nation:

“…[T]o prevent the state’s health care system from being overwhelmed, to allow time for the production of critical test kits, ventilators, and personal protective equipment, and to avoid needless deaths, it is reasonable and necessary to direct residents to remain at home or in their place of residence to the maximum extent feasible.” -The Office of Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Executive Order 2020-21 (COVID-19)

When public health officials strongly recommend that we immediately practice appropriate social distancing, we do that. What this means is that whenever we are able to do so, we should anticipate and avoid places where we cannot be at least 6 feet from another person—except, of course, family members who we live with. If you work in an industry that requires you to show up, do not fret. If the rest of us altruistically do what we can, you should also be okay. If you have a friend or relative who may be at increased risk because of a prior condition, stay away from them—again, let us take care of each other.

But be mindful that social distancing does not mean social isolation. We can and should stay connected through technology that enables us to reach out and connect. This is also good for our emotional and mental health.

Of course, we must not forget to practice respiratory and hand washing etiquette, washing our hands the right way, with soap and running water, when:

  1. You arrive at your location (if leaving home is necessary) and when you return home.
  2. Before and after handling food.
  3. After toileting.

None of these cautions and behavioral virtues suggest that it is necessary to freak out and purchase all the available toilet paper or hand sanitizer. All indications are that food and basic necessities will continue to be available. It does not mean to be obsessively and compulsively spraying disinfectant on every surface of your home multiple times a day, every day. If we practice social distancing or stay home where mandated and practice appropriate hand washing and respiratory etiquette, this is not necessary.

Times like this call for bolstering virtuous behavior. Do what we are told for the sake of all. Do what we can to reconnect with our families and our local community. Do remember those in need. We can go out for a walk or a run or a hike. With appropriate distance these are all okay.

The bottom line is that it is appropriate and virtuous to calmly and sensibly take measures to slow the spread, following guidelines from valid sources while taking care of each other… keeping our distance but keeping in touch.

fluegel-larissa-blogLarissa Fluegel, MD, MHS, is an Adjunct Assistant Professor with the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences and the College of Human Medicine at Michigan State University where she teaches bioethics and the social context of clinical decisions. Her academic interests include the integration of bioethics, social determinants of health, shared decision-making, and health policy into medical education.

Join the discussion! Your comments and responses to this commentary are welcomed. The author will respond to all comments made by Thursday, April 9, 2020. With your participation, we hope to create discussions rich with insights from diverse perspectives.

You must provide your name and email address to leave a comment. Your email address will not be made public.

Click through to view references

Posted in Bioethics in the News, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Listen: Why I Left the U.S. for My Surgical Procedure

No Easy Answers in Bioethics logoNo Easy Answers in Bioethics Episode 21

What would you do if you needed surgery, but seeking care would mean $25,000 or more in medical debt? Would you consider traveling to another country to receive the same surgery at a fraction of that cost? Would you put off seeking care entirely, until it became an emergency situation?

These questions related to access to care, health insurance, and medical tourism are explored in this episode, which features Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences faculty members Len Fleck and Larissa Fluegel. Dr. Fluegel, a clinician born and raised in the Dominican Republic, shares her personal experience of needing gallbladder surgery, and the reasons why she traveled from Michigan to the Dominican Republic to receive that surgery. It may not be surprising that the main reason was cost. Discussing the healthcare systems in both countries, Drs. Fleck and Fluegel explore the challenges that under- and uninsured individuals in the U.S. face when seeking care.

Ways to Listen

This episode was produced and edited by Liz McDaniel in the Center for Ethics. Music: “While We Walk (2004)” by Antony Raijekov via Free Music Archive, licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. Full episode transcript available.

About: No Easy Answers in Bioethics is a podcast series from the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences in the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine. Each month Center for Ethics faculty and their collaborators discuss their ongoing work and research across many areas of bioethics. Episodes are hosted by H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online.

Posted in Center News, Outreach, Podcasts, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Dr. Cabrera gives community talk on psychiatric neurosurgery

Laura Cabrera photoOn February 18, Center Assistant Professor Dr. Laura Cabrera presented a talk entitled “The ethics of psychiatric neurosurgery” at Schuler Books & Music in Okemos. The event was part of the Cafe Scientifique series presented by the Lansing Community College Science Department.

In her presentation Dr. Cabrera shared results from her Science and Society at State grant with the audience, and discussed how the insights from that project led to her current NIH-funded project, “Is the Treatment Perceived to be Worse than the Disease?: Ethical Concerns and Attitudes towards Psychiatric Electroceutical Interventions.” The presentation also highlighted the role of neuroethics in examining and addressing public perceptions and values around psychiatric neurosurgery.

Visit the Lansing Community College website for information on future Cafe Scientifique events, which are free to attend and open to the public.

Posted in Bioethics Events, Center News, Friends of the Center, Outreach, Research, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , ,

Trust and Transparency in Quarantine

Bioethics in the News logoThis post is a part of our Bioethics in the News series

By Parker Crutchfield, PhD

As of February 11, more than 1,000 people have died from the novel coronavirus, the vast majority of them in China. As the virus spreads, China has been implementing the largest quarantine in human history. The virus has spread beyond the borders of China, and has been observed in at least twenty-four countries. There is no way of knowing how effective the quarantine has been. It obviously didn’t prevent the virus’s spread, though it’s likely fewer people are infected because of it. Part of the reason that the quarantine has not worked to prevent the spread is that many in China evidently don’t trust those implementing the quarantine. About five million people left Wuhan before the quarantine locked down the city. And the images in this video are certainly not of a family trusting their government.

Trust and quarantine
A prominent account of what makes public health interventions permissible implies that public trust is necessary for public health interventions to be morally permissible. As a general rule, this is false. Public trust in Flint has been totally undermined. But in that city, public health interventions on the water supply are not only permissible, they are obligatory. So, it’s not true that trust is necessary. But that is not to say that public trust isn’t critical to the value of a public health intervention.

Trust and mistrust street signs image

Image description: two green street signs with white lettering, one reads “trust” with an arrow pointing to the right, the other reads “mistrust” with an arrow pointing to the left. Image source: Pixabay.

The value of a public health intervention, and its moral authority, is primarily a matter of the value of the benefit it achieves (the value of the cases prevented) minus the disvalue of the burdens it requires people to bear (the disvalue of social isolation). Trust may not be necessary, but it certainly impacts the benefits and burdens of a public health intervention. There is significant benefit in not having five million people evade a quarantine because they mistrust those implementing it. Who is more burdened, the family who fights tooth and nail the officials forcibly removing them from their home, or the family who goes willingly because they trust them? Mistrust creates burdens; trust promotes value. In other words, mistrust encourages people to break quarantine. If the goal is to encourage social isolation and compliance, public trust is key.

Trust and transparency
If trust is so important to the effectiveness of a quarantine, what factors promote trust? That same theory of the morality of public health interventions derives the value of transparency from the claim that transparency promotes trust. The idea is that the more open policy decisions, the more the public will trust them. As before, this is not generally true. Some research indicates that transparency actually undermines trust (De Fine Licht, 2011; Grimmelikhuijsen, 2014).

800px-A_Screen_Display_During_Wuhan_Coronavirus_Outbreak

Image description: A screen display on the side of a building showing “early discovery, early report, early quarantine, early diagnosis, early treatment” during the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak in Hefei, Anhui, China. Image source: Zhou Guanhuai/Wikimedia Commons.

That is, the more people know about policy implementation the less they trust the people implementing it. If accurate, this research suggests instead that if we want people to trust public health policies, information should be withheld from them. This is in line with earlier research that suggests what people really want is for decision-makers to be empathetic and non-self-interested and that, if they are, for them to make mostly non-transparent decisions. People may want “stealth democracy” (Hibbing and Theiss-More, 2002).

So, probably it is not generally true that transparency promotes trust. But quarantine might be a special case. When the public already mistrusts those implementing public health policies, it’s not clear that there is any way to rebuild trust other than by being transparent. China was already in a tough spot, after their mishandling of the SARS outbreak in 2003, about which officials withheld information from the public and the global health community. Combined with the attempted silencing of the coronavirus whistleblower and his recent death, officials’ actions set the stage for a mistrustful public and less effective quarantine.

The next outbreak
Given officials’ actions in response to SARS, the public response to attempts to control coronavirus was probably never going to be trusting. Regardless of when the next outbreak occurred, the public was never going to trust the interventions to control it, whatever they happened to be. That was determined in 2003. Transparency now won’t help trust now, and so it won’t help the effectiveness of the present quarantine or any of the other interventions, such as the disinfectant now being sprayed. The damage to the present is done. Sadly, given that officials have responded like they did in 2003, interventions aimed at controlling their next outbreak, whenever that happens to be, will be upon a mistrusting public. When that time comes, if officials choose to quarantine, it seems likely that that quarantine will elicit similar responses: people will evade and resist, grabbing door frames as they are pulled from their homes. The virus will not be contained as well as it could have been, and more people will get sick and die. Present transparency could have promoted future trust, greater compliance, and prevented sickness and death, but that opportunity has come and gone.

There is a lesson for local officials as they try to intervene on the ongoing water crisis in Flint, the PFAS scare in West Michigan, and, in my hometown, the threat of mosquito-borne illness. The lesson is: transparency now purchases trust later. And that trust may prevent suffering and save lives.

parker-crutchfield-cropParker Crutchfield, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Program in Medical Ethics, Humanities, and Law at the Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, where he teaches medical ethics and provides ethics consultation. His research interests in bioethics include the epistemology of bioethics and the ethics of enhancement, gene editing, and research.

Join the discussion! Your comments and responses to this commentary are welcomed. The author will respond to all comments made by Thursday, March 5, 2020. With your participation, we hope to create discussions rich with insights from diverse perspectives.

You must provide your name and email address to leave a comment. Your email address will not be made public.

More Bioethics in the News from Dr. Crutchfield: Public Health Crisis Warrants Liberty RestrictionsWe Should Tolerate and Regulate Clinical Use of Human Germline Editing

Click through to view references

Posted in Bioethics in the News, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , ,

Brews and Views: Trust Me, I’m a Scientist!

Scientist [ˈsīəntəst] — a person who has expert knowledge.

Brews and Views logo with people, brain, DNA, and gear icons

Last month more than 100 faculty members and researchers attended the latest Brews and Views session: “Trust Me, I’m a Scientist! Responsibility and Accountability in Science.” The event series, presented collaboratively by the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences and the Institute for Quantitative Health Science & Engineering, features moderated discussions addressing fascinating and provocative areas of bioscience and engineering.

The event was moderated by Dr. Monique Mitchell Turner, Chair and Professor in the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts and Sciences. Dr. Turner began with an audience response poll that asked attendees to consider both the role of institutional review boards regarding responsible and ethical research conduct, and the ethical obligations of scientists studying risky innovations that could potentially cause harm. Subsequent questions focused on the concept of dual use, which Dr. Turner clarified as referring to “technologies that alternately can be used for peaceful as well as for hostile purposes.” Regarding potential dual use harms, who is ultimately responsible: the principal investigator, the journal that published the work, or someone else entirely?

V211-social media

Image description: an illustration depicts four scientists holding a double helix, beaker, atoms, and a magnifying glass. Image source: vecteezy.com.

Discussant Dr. Heather Douglas, Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy, College of Arts & Letters, examined moral responsibility in scientific endeavors, focusing on two qualities of dual use concerns, i.e., the intention of the researcher and that which might or might not be foreseeable. She clarified that when the ultimate use is readily predictable, ignoring the prospect of use for hostile purposes would be reckless, but unfortunately, many things are not predictable.

Dr. Douglas pointed out that the two checks on scientific endeavors include responsibility and accountability, but the conundrum is that those two checks are not necessarily synced — scientists can be held responsible for things which they are not accountable and accountable for things which they are not responsible. It’s reasonable to hold scientists accountable to good methodology, to their colleagues, and to society. But there are other actors who are accountable as well, including the institution (as well as journals that publish research). The paradox is that the more an institution enforces accountability checklists, the more an individual scientist might mistakenly feel that they’ve met their responsibility by simply complying with that checklist. Dr. Douglas urged that to be accountable, scientists have a responsibility to think beyond such checklists to imagine future possibilities including dual use concerns.

Discussant Dr. Victor DiRita, Rudolph Hugh Professor & Chair in the Department of Microbiology & Molecular Genetics, College of Natural Science, acknowledged that scientists need to be both responsible and accountable, but he pointed out that science “works” by advancing incrementally, building on the base of prior work. For this reason, he rejected the broad notion of dual use, since it is impossible to have sufficient imagination to accurately predict future nefarious use of any given innovation. To illustrate, he noted that dual use concerns are often related to “gain of function” in which research builds on and extends the capacity of previous work. He noted that governance, carried out through the vehicles of institutional policies is unable to predict such capacity extension, and therefore dual use itself is impossible to predict.

Dr. DiRita expressed worry that excessive focus on potential risks can blur the lines between real risk and perceived risk, possibly impeding the progress of important useful research. While institutional regulatory policies are well-intended, he is concerned about undue regulatory burdens in those labs that lack the resources necessary to be compliant. Moreover, he was in agreement with Dr. Douglas that such checklists erroneously allow scientists to believe that simple compliance with regulation is sufficient to meet their responsibilities, and that journals should share responsibility for publicizing dual use science.

Brews-Views-01-24-2020 Douglas Turner and DiRita photo

Image description: Pictured left to right are Heather Douglas, Monique Mitchell Turner, and Victor DiRita presenting to the audience at Brews and Views on January 24, 2020. Photo courtesy of Libby Bogdan-Lovis.

Brews and Views is collaboratively organized by Dr. Christopher Contag, Dr. Laura Cabrera, and Libby Bogdan-Lovis. Visit our website for more information on past events in the series.

Posted in Bioethics Events, Center News, Outreach, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , ,

Bioethics for Breakfast: Can Pharmaceutical Cost Control Be Achieved Ethically with Surgical Precision?

Bioethics for Breakfast Seminars in Medicine, Law and SocietyPaula Cunningham and Craig Hunter presented at the February 6th Bioethics for Breakfast event, offering perspectives and insight on the topic “Health Reform: Can Pharmaceutical Cost Control Be Achieved Ethically with Surgical Precision?”

This year’s Bioethics for Breakfast series is focused on a central theme: “Is There a Cure for Our Sick Health Care System?” The series is generously sponsored by Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman.

There is virtually unanimous agreement among health policy analysts that something must be done to control health care costs, especially pharmaceutical costs, which are often a major burden for the elderly. Consumers and taxpayers are also demanding that health care costs be controlled and reduced, most often with regard to drugs. This is why the recent focus has been on the price of drugs. However, any practical proposal to reduce drug health care costs has been denounced as rationing and/or as a threat to medical innovation. The result has been political inertia and economic exuberance (for for-profit health care corporations), with $3.8 trillion in U.S. health spending in 2019 and projections of $6.0 trillion total health spending for 2027. What forms of drug-related health care cost control are you willing to accept for yourself and those you care about? What do you see as the ethical challenges that must be addressed by any effort to control such health care costs, especially for the elderly?

Speaker Paula Cunningham, State Director of AARP Michigan, highlighted the struggles that people in Michigan face regarding the price of prescription drugs, noting that some individuals travel to Canada because the cost there is drastically lower. Cunningham shared the AARP “Stop Rx Greed” campaign as an example of their advocacy work in this area. She also noted that there are several pieces of legislation being worked on in Michigan and at the national level, such as an importation bill, that would reduce prescription drug costs. She finally stressed that this issue is not just about data and facts, it is about people’s lives.

Speaker Craig Hunter, Director of Specialty Program Outcomes and Analytics for CVS Health, brought industry expertise to the discussion and provided an economic perspective on the issue. He shared three main points, the first being that we need to rethink the question “can medical outcomes be achieved ethically with surgical precision?” because economic structures in the U.S. are not set up in a way that drives synergy. Hunter then discussed the need for structural changes to encourage creative solutions. When asking those in attendance if they believed that drugs in the U.S. are a public good, a minority responded in agreement. Hunter pointed out that this question has been answered very differently in other countries. Finally, Hunter noted that, regardless of “right or wrong,” the market is responding to its own stimulus; the business has been incentivised for certain outcomes.

Attendee questions and comments came from a variety of perspectives, including physicians, legislative staff, and community leaders. There was discussion of direct-to-consumer advertising, drug patents, and the barriers that exist for the consumer within this complex system.

About the Speakers

Paula Cunningham
Paula Cunningham, MLIR, is State Director of AARP Michigan, which has more than 1.4 million members. She is former President of Lansing Community College, and in the business community was CEO of Capitol National Bank. She serves on numerous boards, including, but not limited to, Davenport University and McLaren Health Systems-Lansing. Paula is in the Michigan Women’s Hall of Fame and was the first African American woman in the country to be president of a majority owned bank.

Craig Hunter
Craig Hunter is the Director of Specialty Program Outcomes and Analytics for CVS Health, providing leadership and oversight for outcomes-based financial reconciliations negotiated across specialty drug and patient management products. Previously Craig worked at Eli Lilly, first as the Lead Outcomes Scientist for the U.S. Alzheimer’s and Oncology franchises, and later leading U.S. Outcomes Customer Engagement. Additional previous experience includes time consulting as well as Primary Investigator for a USAID-funded project examining the intersection of traditional and western medicine in South Africa. Craig earned his MPP from the University of Chicago and a BA in Communications (Rhetoric)/Political Science from Furman University.

About Bioethics for Breakfast:
In 2010, Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman invited the Center for Ethics to partner on a bioethics seminar series. The Center for Ethics and Hall Render invite guests from the health professions, religious and community organizations, political circles, and the academy to engage in lively discussions of topics spanning the worlds of bioethics, health law, business, and policy. For each event, the Center selects from a wide range of controversial issues and provides two presenters either from our own faculty or invited guests, who offer distinctive, and sometimes clashing, perspectives. Those brief presentations are followed by a moderated open discussion.
Posted in Bioethics Events, Friends of the Center, Outreach, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Listen: Shared Decision-Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening

No Easy Answers in Bioethics logoNo Easy Answers in Bioethics Episode 20

This episode features guests Dr. Karen Kelly-Blake, Associate Professor in the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, and Dr. Masahito Jimbo, Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at University of Michigan Medical School. Drs. Kelly-Blake and Jimbo discuss their NIH-funded study known by the acronym DATES—Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making—which addressed shared decision-making, decision aids, and patient-physician communication regarding colorectal cancer screening. The two researchers provide insight into the study and its results, also reflecting on what the process of shared decision-making means to them in the present day.

Ways to Listen

This episode was produced and edited by Liz McDaniel in the Center for Ethics. Music: “While We Walk (2004)” by Antony Raijekov via Free Music Archive, licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. Full episode transcript available.

About: No Easy Answers in Bioethics is a podcast series from the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences in the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine. Each month Center for Ethics faculty and their collaborators discuss their ongoing work and research across many areas of bioethics. Episodes are hosted by H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online.

Posted in Center News, Outreach, Podcasts, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,