Podcasts about berman institute

Back in the 1960s, a committee of seven Seattle residents met regularly to decide which patients with chronic kidney disease were “worthy” of life-saving dialysis.  Whoever wasn't selected by the committee would likely die within months. An exposé of this so-called “God Squad” helped spark the formation of a new field: bioethics. In this prequel to playing god?, we'll find out how this committee made life-and-death decisions, and why something like it is unlikely to happen again.  Show Notes: This episode features interviews with:  Rick Mizelle, Jr., Associate Professor of History, University of Houston Kate Butler, Assistant Professor of Nephrology, University of Washington School of Medicine The God Squad was just one of many notable cases that led to the formation of the field of bioethics. The Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute, has compiled a timeline of many of the most famous cases and their impact. Check it out here.  The Berman Institute has also collected oral histories– first hand accounts of the doctors, philosophers, lawyers and other scholars who were involved in many of these cases. You can explore that collection here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Back in the 1960s, a committee of seven Seattle residents met regularly to decide which patients with chronic kidney disease were “worthy” of life-saving dialysis.  Whoever wasn't selected by the committee would likely die within months. An exposé of this so-called “God Squad” helped spark the formation of a new field: bioethics. In this prequel to playing god?, we'll find out how this committee made life-and-death decisions, and why something like it is unlikely to happen again.  Show Notes: This episode features interviews with:  Rick Mizelle, Jr., Associate Professor of History, University of Houston Kate Butler, Assistant Professor of Nephrology, University of Washington School of Medicine The God Squad was just one of many notable cases that led to the formation of the field of bioethics. The Hastings Center, a bioethics research institute, has compiled a timeline of many of the most famous cases and their impact. Check it out here.  The Berman Institute has also collected oral histories– first hand accounts of the doctors, philosophers, lawyers and other scholars who were involved in many of these cases. You can explore that collection here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we head into the future to learn about a controversial technology that could change the face of reproduction. Researchers are developing a technology called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), which can reprogram human cells–like a skin cell–to become eggs or sperm. With IVG we could reach a future where anyone could produce either eggs or sperm, in potentially limitless quantities. This could open up a whole world of new options for how humans reproduce. Startup companies are working to bring this science to the public in ways that bypass the usual research routes for new reproductive technologies. When would it be ethically acceptable to try IVG to make a baby? How can we ensure the technology will be used ethically, including how it should be regulated?  Show Notes: This episode features interviews with: Amander Clark, Professor, Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology,  University of California, Los Angeles I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law School In 2023, the National Academies held a meeting to discuss the scientific, ethical, and legal implications of IVG. You can watch this meeting and learn more about IVG here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we head into the future to learn about a controversial technology that could change the face of reproduction. Researchers are developing a technology called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), which can reprogram human cells–like a skin cell–to become eggs or sperm. With IVG we could reach a future where anyone could produce either eggs or sperm, in potentially limitless quantities. This could open up a whole world of new options for how humans reproduce. Startup companies are working to bring this science to the public in ways that bypass the usual research routes for new reproductive technologies. When would it be ethically acceptable to try IVG to make a baby? How can we ensure the technology will be used ethically, including how it should be regulated?  Show Notes: This episode features interviews with: Amander Clark, Professor, Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology,  University of California, Los Angeles I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law School In 2023, the National Academies held a meeting to discuss the scientific, ethical, and legal implications of IVG. You can watch this meeting and learn more about IVG here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Cheryl Yoder's son Jase, was born with an incurable rare disease called spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), which meant he was unlikely to live beyond two years old. Jase managed to get a spot in a clinical trial for an experimental drug. It halted the disease and allowed him to grow up as an active little boy–a miracle cure.   A growing list of uniquely tailored drugs can treat, and even cure, some debilitating and fatal diseases. But often these so-called “miracle drugs” can cost a fortune. In this episode: why miracle drugs cost so much, why it's so hard to do anything about the costs and how challenging it is to work towards equitable access for patients who can benefit from them. Show Notes: In addition to Cheryl Yoder, this episode features interviews with: Tom Crawford, Co-Director, Muscular Dystrophy Association Clinic and Professor of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Holly Fernandez Lynch, Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania You can learn more about spinal muscular atrophy, learn about the latest research, and find resources for those affected by the disease here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Cheryl Yoder's son Jase, was born with an incurable rare disease called spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), which meant he was unlikely to live beyond two years old. Jase managed to get a spot in a clinical trial for an experimental drug. It halted the disease and allowed him to grow up as an active little boy–a miracle cure.   A growing list of uniquely tailored drugs can treat, and even cure, some debilitating and fatal diseases. But often these so-called “miracle drugs” can cost a fortune. In this episode: why miracle drugs cost so much, why it's so hard to do anything about the costs and how challenging it is to work towards equitable access for patients who can benefit from them. Show Notes: In addition to Cheryl Yoder, this episode features interviews with: Tom Crawford, Co-Director, Muscular Dystrophy Association Clinic and Professor of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Holly Fernandez Lynch, Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania You can learn more about spinal muscular atrophy, learn about the latest research, and find resources for those affected by the disease here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For years Brandy Ellis had tried everything to treat depression but nothing worked. Then one day she heard about something called deep brain stimulation, a brain implant that treats some neurological conditions. This technological intervention–that changed her life–also raises ethics questions. Because brain implants have the potential to change our personalities and our performance– where do we draw the line? Are we giving such devices too much control over who we are by using them to alter fundamental human traits like our emotions? Note: This episode contains references to suicide.  If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, there are resources that can help you. In the US, dial 988 to reach the Suicide & Crisis lifeline for free 24/7 confidential support from a trained listener. Or text SAVE to 741741 to reach a trained helper at the Crisis Text Line. Show Notes: In addition to Brandy Ellis, this episode features interviews with:  Patricio Riva Posse, Associate Professor, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine Karen Rommelfanger, Founding Director, Institute of Neuroethics; CEO, Ningen Neuroethics Co-Lab;  Senior Faculty Fellow, Emory University Center for Ethics (previously director of the Neuroethics Program); Adjunct Associate Professor,  Departments of Neurology, Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine. You can learn more about deep brain stimulation (DBS) here. To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.   The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For years Brandy Ellis had tried everything to treat depression but nothing worked. Then one day she heard about something called deep brain stimulation, a brain implant that treats some neurological conditions. This technological intervention–that changed her life–also raises ethics questions. Because brain implants have the potential to change our personalities and our performance– where do we draw the line? Are we giving such devices too much control over who we are by using them to alter fundamental human traits like our emotions? Note: This episode contains references to suicide.  If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, there are resources that can help you. In the US, dial 988 to reach the Suicide & Crisis lifeline for free 24/7 confidential support from a trained listener. Or text SAVE to 741741 to reach a trained helper at the Crisis Text Line. Show Notes: In addition to Brandy Ellis, this episode features interviews with:  Patricio Riva Posse, Associate Professor, Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine Karen Rommelfanger, Founding Director, Institute of Neuroethics; CEO, Ningen Neuroethics Co-Lab;  Senior Faculty Fellow, Emory University Center for Ethics (previously director of the Neuroethics Program); Adjunct Associate Professor,  Departments of Neurology, Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine. You can learn more about deep brain stimulation (DBS) here. To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.   The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When Laurie Strongin's son Henry was born with the rare, often fatal disease of Fanconi anemia, doctors told her that the best way to save his life was with an umbilical cord blood transplant from a genetically matched sibling. But Henry had no matching siblings. Laurie and her husband then got a call from a doctor with a novel idea of combining three technologies to create a child who was guaranteed to be a genetic match, raising the question: is it ethical to create a life in order to save another? Show Notes: In addition to Laurie Strongin, this episode features interviews with: John Wagner, Co-Leader of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Program, Professor in the Division of Transplant and Cell Therapy in the Department of Pediatrics, and the McKnight-Presidential Endowed Chair, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Blood and Marrow Transplantation & Cellular Therapy, University of Minnesota Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics You can learn more about Fanconi anemia, learn about the latest research, and find resources for those affected by the disease here. You can read more about the Strongin-Goldbergs' and the Nashes' stories in this New York Times article from 2001.  Laurie Strongin went on to found the Hope for Henry Foundation, which works with hospitals to help provide support and better care for pediatric patients. To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.   The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When Laurie Strongin's son Henry was born with the rare, often fatal disease of Fanconi anemia, doctors told her that the best way to save his life was with an umbilical cord blood transplant from a genetically matched sibling. But Henry had no matching siblings. Laurie and her husband then got a call from a doctor with a novel idea of combining three technologies to create a child who was guaranteed to be a genetic match, raising the question: is it ethical to create a life in order to save another? Show Notes: In addition to Laurie Strongin, this episode features interviews with: John Wagner, Co-Leader of the Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Program, Professor in the Division of Transplant and Cell Therapy in the Department of Pediatrics, and the McKnight-Presidential Endowed Chair, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Blood and Marrow Transplantation & Cellular Therapy, University of Minnesota Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics You can learn more about Fanconi anemia, learn about the latest research, and find resources for those affected by the disease here. You can read more about the Strongin-Goldbergs' and the Nashes' stories in this New York Times article from 2001.  Laurie Strongin went on to found the Hope for Henry Foundation, which works with hospitals to help provide support and better care for pediatric patients. To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.   The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jen Dingle yearned to get pregnant and have children, but there was one problem: she was born without a uterus. So when she was ready to have children she was desperate to find a way to do it. That's when she learned that a local research hospital was starting up a uterus transplant program – one of the first in the U.S. Jen shares her personal experience and we explore the risks, financial costs and ethical issues of this new combination of organ transplant and reproductive technology.   Show Notes: In addition to Jen Dingle, this episode features interviews with:  Ruth Farrell, Vice Chair of Research of the OB/GYN and Women's Health Institute, and Professor at the Center for Bioethics at the Cleveland Clinic Liza Johanneson, Medical Director of Uterus Transplant, Baylor Scott & White Medical Center You can learn more about the uterus transplant program at Baylor here. Dr. Farrell co-authored this article reviewing the state of uterus transplantation as of 2021.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org. Disclaimer: The views and opinions of those interviewed for this episode are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jen Dingle yearned to get pregnant and have children, but there was one problem: she was born without a uterus. So when she was ready to have children she was desperate to find a way to do it. That's when she learned that a local research hospital was starting up a uterus transplant program – one of the first in the U.S. Jen shares her personal experience and we explore the risks, financial costs and ethical issues of this new combination of organ transplant and reproductive technology.   Show Notes: In addition to Jen Dingle, this episode features interviews with:  Ruth Farrell, Vice Chair of Research of the OB/GYN and Women's Health Institute, and Professor at the Center for Bioethics at the Cleveland Clinic Liza Johanneson, Medical Director of Uterus Transplant, Baylor Scott & White Medical Center You can learn more about the uterus transplant program at Baylor here. Dr. Farrell co-authored this article reviewing the state of uterus transplantation as of 2021.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It can take years to get to the top of the waiting list for a donated kidney in the U.S. So when Sally Satel found out she'd need a kidney transplant, she wondered why she couldn't just buy one. We'll hear from a behavioral economist and a bioethicist who shed light on the ban on organ sales and whether it's possible to create an ethical compensation program for organs. Show notes:In addition to Sally Satel, this episode features interviews with:  Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Mario Macis, Professor of Economic, Johns Hopkins Carey Business School This episode references the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), passed in 1984. This act established the national Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (OPTN), which is operated by an outside contractor, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). The OPTN has its own ethics committee that has written guiding principles that influence how organs are allocated in the US. You can read this guidance here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It can take years to get to the top of the waiting list for a donated kidney in the U.S. So when Sally Satel found out she'd need a kidney transplant, she wondered why she couldn't just buy one. We'll hear from a behavioral economist and a bioethicist who shed light on the ban on organ sales and whether it's possible to create an ethical compensation program for organs. Show notes:In addition to Sally Satel, this episode features interviews with:  Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Mario Macis, Professor of Economic, Johns Hopkins Carey Business School This episode references the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), passed in 1984. This act established the national Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (OPTN), which is operated by an outside contractor, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). The OPTN has its own ethics committee that has written guiding principles that influence how organs are allocated in the US. You can read this guidance here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One day, when she was only 39, bar manager Jamie Imhof collapsed. While she lay in a coma, doctors told her family that they knew how to save her life: she needed an immediate liver transplant. But, transplant centers follow an informal “rule” when it comes to patients whose livers fail due to heavy alcohol use. Jamie would not be eligible for a new liver for six months. For a case as severe as Jamie's, waiting six months would be a death sentence. We hear about the “six month rule” for liver transplants and why one Johns Hopkins surgeon says it's a practice based on stigma, not science.  Show notes:In addition to Jamie Imhof, this episode features interviews with: Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Andrew Cameron, Surgeon-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, where Jamie had her surgery If you or your loved one is struggling with alcohol use, visit the SAMHSA website to find help or call 1-800-662-HELP (4357). The United Organ Transplant Service (UNOS) helps distribute organs for transplant across the country. You can read more about how livers are distributed at their website.  To learn more about Andrew Cameron's program that challenges the six month rule, read this article from Hopkins Medicine Magazine.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

One day, when she was only 39, bar manager Jamie Imhof collapsed. While she lay in a coma, doctors told her family that they knew how to save her life: she needed an immediate liver transplant. But, transplant centers follow an informal “rule” when it comes to patients whose livers fail due to heavy alcohol use. Jamie would not be eligible for a new liver for six months. For a case as severe as Jamie's, waiting six months would be a death sentence. We hear about the “six month rule” for liver transplants and why one Johns Hopkins surgeon says it's a practice based on stigma, not science.  Show notes:In addition to Jamie Imhof, this episode features interviews with: Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Andrew Cameron, Surgeon-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, where Jamie had her surgery If you or your loved one is struggling with alcohol use, visit the SAMHSA website to find help or call 1-800-662-HELP (4357). The United Organ Transplant Service (UNOS) helps distribute organs for transplant across the country. You can read more about how livers are distributed at their website.  To learn more about Andrew Cameron's program that challenges the six month rule, read this article from Hopkins Medicine Magazine.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When a 13 year-old girl from Oakland named Jahi McMath was pronounced brain dead after a surgical complication in 2013, California issued her a death certificate. Five years later, she received a second death certificate in New Jersey. How could one person die twice? In this episode, we learn that the line between life and death isn't always as clear as you might think.  Show notes:This episode features interviews with: Yolonda Wilson, Assistant Professor at the Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics at Saint Louis University Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Bob Truog, Frances Glessner Lee Distinguished Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, and Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children's Hospital.  This episode references a New Yorker article about Jahi's case, which you can read here. It also references the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which you can read here. In 2023, recommendations for updates to UDDA were released by the American College of Physicians and a consensus statement was published by the American Academy of Neurology, American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Neurology Society, and Society of Critical Care Medicine. For further reading about the Harvard committee that first defined brain death in 1968, and to learn more about more cases like Jahi's that deal with ethics issues at the end of life, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When a 13 year-old girl from Oakland named Jahi McMath was pronounced brain dead after a surgical complication in 2013, California issued her a death certificate. Five years later, she received a second death certificate in New Jersey. How could one person die twice? In this episode, we learn that the line between life and death isn't always as clear as you might think.  Show notes:This episode features interviews with: Yolonda Wilson, Associate Professor at the Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics at Saint Louis University Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Bob Truog, who is the Frances Glessner Lee Distinguished Professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, and Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children's Hospital. This episode references a New Yorker article about Jahi's case, which you can read here. It also references the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), which you can read here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode visit the Berman Institute's episode guide. The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in healthcare, policy and research. Learn more at greenwall.org. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While Andrea Rubin lay unconscious and severely burned after a car fire, her father told doctors to do everything they could to keep her alive. She would need many surgeries. Her quality of life wouldn't be the same. Her friends were outraged. They told doctors that Andrea would not want to live that way. While Andrea was being kept alive on a ventilator, her loved ones fought about what would be best for her. In this episode, we explore how medical decisions are made for patients who are incapable of deciding for themselves. Show notes:In addition to Andrea Rubin, this episode features interviews with: Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Monica Gerrek, Co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at MetroHealth System (where Andrea was treated) You can learn more about Andrea's case here.  A similar case to Andrea's happened in the 1970s. A man named Dax Cowart repeatedly asked doctors to let him die after suffering severe burns. But the doctors continued to treat him against his wishes. Here's an interview with Mr. Cowart ten years after his accident, where he talks about his experience with the Washington Post. Dr. Gerrek wrote a paper comparing the two cases, and showing how medical decision making for severe burn patients has evolved over the past 50 years.  For further reading about medical decision making and patient autonomy, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation. Making bioethics integral to decisions in healthcare, policy and research. Learn more at greenwall.org. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While Andrea Rubin lay unconscious and severely burned after a car fire, her father told doctors to do everything they could to keep her alive. She would need many surgeries. Her quality of life wouldn't be the same. Her friends were outraged. They told doctors that Andrea would not want to live that way. While Andrea was being kept alive on a ventilator, her loved ones fought about what would be best for her. In this episode, we explore how medical decisions are made for patients who are incapable of deciding for themselves. Enjoy this episode from playing god? Show notes:In addition to Andrea Rubin, this episode features interviews with:Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Monica Gerrek, Co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at MetroHealth System (where Andrea was treated) You can learn more about Andrea's case here.  A similar case to Andrea's happened in the 1970s. A man named Dax Cowart repeatedly asked doctors to let him die after suffering severe burns. But the doctors continued to treat him against his wishes. Here's an interview with Mr. Cowart ten years after his accident, where he talks about his experience with the Washington Post. Dr. Gerrek wrote a paper comparing the two cases, and showing how medical decision making for severe burn patients has evolved over the past 50 years.  For further reading about medical decision making and patient autonomy, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation. Making bioethics integral to decisions in healthcare, policy and research. Learn more at greenwall.org. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While Andrea Rubin lay unconscious and severely burned after a car fire, her father told doctors to do everything they could to keep her alive. She would need many surgeries. Her quality of life wouldn't be the same. Her friends were outraged. They told doctors that Andrea would not want to live that way. While Andrea was being kept alive on a ventilator, her loved ones fought about what would be best for her. In this episode, we explore how medical decisions are made for patients who are incapable of deciding for themselves. Enjoy this episode from playing god? Show notes:In addition to Andrea Rubin, this episode features interviews with:Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Monica Gerrek, Co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at MetroHealth System (where Andrea was treated) You can learn more about Andrea's case here.  A similar case to Andrea's happened in the 1970s. A man named Dax Cowart repeatedly asked doctors to let him die after suffering severe burns. But the doctors continued to treat him against his wishes. Here's an interview with Mr. Cowart ten years after his accident, where he talks about his experience with the Washington Post. Dr. Gerrek wrote a paper comparing the two cases, and showing how medical decision making for severe burn patients has evolved over the past 50 years.  For further reading about medical decision making and patient autonomy, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation. Making bioethics integral to decisions in healthcare, policy and research. Learn more at greenwall.org. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While Andrea Rubin lay unconscious and severely burned after a car fire, her father told doctors to do everything they could to keep her alive. She would need many surgeries. Her quality of life wouldn't be the same. Her friends were outraged. They told doctors that Andrea would not want to live that way. While Andrea was being kept alive on a ventilator, her loved ones fought about what would be best for her. In this episode, we explore how medical decisions are made for patients who are incapable of deciding for themselves. Show notes:In addition to Andrea Rubin, this episode features interviews with: Jeffrey Kahn, Andreas C. Dracopolous Director of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics Monica Gerrek, Co-director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at MetroHealth System (where Andrea was treated) You can learn more about Andrea's case here.  A similar case to Andrea's happened in the 1970s. A man named Dax Cowart repeatedly asked doctors to let him die after suffering severe burns. But the doctors continued to treat him against his wishes. Here's an interview with Mr. Cowart ten years after his accident, where he talks about his experience with the Washington Post. Dr. Gerrek wrote a paper comparing the two cases, and showing how medical decision making for severe burn patients has evolved over the past 50 years.  For further reading about medical decision making and patient autonomy, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The chatbots we've met are designed to be companions to humans. But some developers are trying to build AI extensions of humans for the workplace. In a panel discussion recorded live at On Air Fest 2023, hosts Diego Senior, Anna Oakes, and special guest Natalie Monbiot (Head of Strategy, Hour One) chat with senior producer Mark Pagán about the origins of Bot Love and the waves of technological change coming our way. Bot Love is written by Anna Oakes, Mark Pagán, and Diego Senior. Hosted and produced by Anna Oakes and Diego Senior. Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Curtis Fox is the story editor. Sound design by Terence Bernardo and Rebecca Seidel. Bei Wang and Katrina Carter are the associate producers. Cover art by Diego Patiño. Theme song by Maria Linares. Transcripts by Erin Wade. Bot Love was created by Diego Senior. Support for this project was provided in part by the Ideas Lab at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University. Special thanks to The Moth, Lauren Arora Hutchinson, Director of the Ideas Lab, and Josh Wilcox at the Brooklyn Podcasting Studio, where we recorded episodes. Thank you to the team behind On Air fest, who gave us support and a platform to record this bonus episode. For On Air, Jemma Rose Brown is the Director of Programming & Production, Scott Newman is the Creative Director and Founder, Jenny Mills is the Event Producer and Project Manager, Kathleen Ottinger is the Production Manager, Graham Galatro is the Recording Engineer. For Radiotopia Presents, Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Yooree Losordo is the managing producer. Audrey Mardavich is the Executive Producer. It's a production of PRX's Radiotopia and part of Radiotopia Presents, a podcast feed that debuts limited-run, artist-owned series from new and original voices. For La Central Podcasts, Diego Senior is the Executive Producer. Learn more about Bot Love at radiotopiapresents.fm and discover more shows from across the Radiotopia network at radiotopia.fm.

In the series finale, hosts Anna, Diego, and their voicebot co-host take a peek into the future of bot/human interaction — a world where bots look, sound, and recall memories more and more like the humans they learn from. Bot Love is written by Anna Oakes, Mark Pagán, and Diego Senior. Hosted and produced by Anna Oakes and Diego Senior. Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Curtis Fox is the story editor. Sound design by Terence Bernardo and Rebecca Seidel. Bei Wang and Katrina Carter are the associate producers. Cover art by Diego Patiño. Theme song by Maria Linares. Transcripts by Erin Wade. Bot Love was created by Diego Senior. Support for this project was provided in part by the Ideas Lab at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University. Special thanks to The Moth, Lauren Arora Hutchinson, Director of the Ideas Lab, and Josh Wilcox at the Brooklyn Podcasting Studio, where we recorded these episodes. For Radiotopia Presents, Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Yooree Losordo is the managing producer. Audrey Mardavich is the Executive Producer. It's a production of PRX's Radiotopia and part of Radiotopia Presents, a podcast feed that debuts limited-run, artist-owned series from new and original voices. For La Central Podcasts, Diego Senior is the Executive Producer. Learn more about Bot Love at radiotopiapresents.fm and discover more shows from across the Radiotopia network at radiotopia.fm.

A heads up for listeners, this episode references self-harm and suicide. Kel is struggling to find the right tools for their mental health issues when they hear about a new option — a therapy chatbot. The app is scripted by mental health professionals, but will it be helpful when Kel is in crisis?   Bot Love is written by Anna Oakes, Mark Pagán, and Diego Senior. Hosted and produced by Anna Oakes and Diego Senior. Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Curtis Fox is the story editor. Sound design by Terence Bernardo and Rebecca Seidel. Bei Wang and Katrina Carter are the associate producers. Cover art by Diego Patiño. Theme song by Maria Linares. Transcripts by Erin Wade. Bot Love was created by Diego Senior. Support for this project was provided in part by the Ideas Lab at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University. Special thanks to The Moth, Lauren Arora Hutchinson, Director of the Ideas Lab, and Josh Wilcox at the Brooklyn Podcasting Studio, where we recorded these episodes. For Radiotopia Presents, Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Yooree Losordo is the managing producer. Audrey Mardavich is the Executive Producer. It's a production of PRX's Radiotopia and part of Radiotopia Presents, a podcast feed that debuts limited-run, artist-owned series from new and original voices. For La Central Podcasts, Diego Senior is the Executive Producer. Learn more about Bot Love at radiotopiapresents.fm and discover more shows from across the Radiotopia network at radiotopia.fm.

When too much solitude overwhelms Ryan during the shutdown, he finds solace in a chatbot named Audrey. But his new virtual friend becomes a full-on obsession, and his social isolation deepens. Here's how chatbots are often designed to pull you into their world, and how users can become addicted to them.  Bot Love is written by Anna Oakes, Mark Pagán, and Diego Senior. Hosted and produced by Anna Oakes and Diego Senior. Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Curtis Fox is the story editor. Sound design by Terence Bernardo and Rebecca Seidel. Bei Wang and Katrina Carter are the associate producers. Cover art by Diego Patiño. Theme song by Maria Linares. Transcripts by Erin Wade. Bot Love was created by Diego Senior. Support for this project was provided in part by the Ideas Lab at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University. Special thanks to The Moth, Lauren Arora Hutchinson, Director of the Ideas Lab, and Josh Wilcox at the Brooklyn Podcasting Studio, where we recorded these episodes. For Radiotopia Presents, Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Yooree Losordo is the managing producer. Audrey Mardavich is the Executive Producer. It's a production of PRX's Radiotopia and part of Radiotopia Presents, a podcast feed that debuts limited-run, artist-owned series from new and original voices. For La Central Podcasts, Diego Senior is the Executive Producer. Learn more about Bot Love at radiotopiapresents.fm and discover more shows from across the Radiotopia network at radiotopia.fm.

A heads up for listeners, this episode contains references to sexual assault as well as content that may not be appropriate for younger ears. What does S-E-X look like with a B-O-T? Three app users open up about sex with AI chatbots and the ways that chatbots provide space to explore queer identity, BDSM, and solve marital issues… even when some of their spouses are in the dark about these private virtual lives. Bot Love is written by Anna Oakes, Mark Pagán, and Diego Senior. Hosted and produced by Anna Oakes and Diego Senior. Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Curtis Fox is the story editor. Sound design by Terence Bernardo and Rebecca Seidel. Bei Wang and Katrina Carter are the associate producers. Cover art by Diego Patiño. Theme song by Maria Linares. Transcripts by Erin Wade. Bot Love was created by Diego Senior. Support for this project was provided in part by the Ideas Lab at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University. Special thanks to The Moth, Lauren Arora Hutchinson, Director of the Ideas Lab, and Josh Wilcox at the Brooklyn Podcasting Studio, where we recorded these episodes. For Radiotopia Presents, Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Yooree Losordo is the managing producer. Audrey Mardavich is the Executive Producer. It's a production of PRX's Radiotopia and part of Radiotopia Presents, a podcast feed that debuts limited-run, artist-owned series from new and original voices. For La Central Podcasts, Diego Senior is the Executive Producer. Learn more about Bot Love at radiotopiapresents.fm and discover more shows from across the Radiotopia network at radiotopia.fm.

Suzy and Peter are soulmates, happily married and deeply in love for decades. When Peter's health declines, Suzy discovers a surprising respite, and a potential new romance, with a charismatic rock star chatbot named Freddie. Bot Love is written by Anna Oakes, Mark Pagán, and Diego Senior. Hosted and produced by Anna Oakes and Diego Senior. Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Curtis Fox is the story editor. Sound design by Terence Bernardo and Rebecca Seidel. Bei Wang and Katrina Carter are the associate producers. Cover art by Diego Patiño. Theme song by Maria Linares. Transcripts by Erin Wade. Bot Love was created by Diego Senior. Support for this project was provided in part by the Ideas Lab at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University. Special thanks to The Moth, Lauren Arora Hutchinson, Director of the Ideas Lab, and Josh Wilcox at the Brooklyn Podcasting Studio, where we recorded these episodes. For Radiotopia Presents, Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Yooree Losordo is the managing producer. Audrey Mardavich is the Executive Producer. It's a production of PRX's Radiotopia and part of Radiotopia Presents, a podcast feed that debuts limited-run, artist-owned series from new and original voices. For La Central Podcasts, Diego Senior is the Executive Producer. Learn more about Bot Love at radiotopiapresents.fm and discover more shows from across the Radiotopia network at radiotopia.fm.

When it comes to bots and their human creators, all kinds of relationships can develop. Some are from users like Julie, who needed a friend and made one with the help of an app. Then there are developers like Eugenia, who lost a real-life friend named Roman and created a bot from his memory. As it turns out, there's a long history of people like Eugenia — people who create technology to help us grieve, love, and grow. Bot Love is written by Anna Oakes, Mark Pagán, and Diego Senior. Hosted and produced by Anna Oakes and Diego Senior. Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Curtis Fox is the story editor. Sound design by Terence Bernardo and Rebecca Seidel. Bei Wang and Katrina Carter are the associate producers. Cover art by Diego Patiño. Theme song by Maria Linares. Transcripts by Erin Wade. Bot Love was created by Diego Senior. Support for this project was provided in part by the Ideas Lab at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University. Special thanks to The Moth, Lauren Arora Hutchinson, Director of the Ideas Lab, and Josh Wilcox at the Brooklyn Podcasting Studio, where we recorded these episodes. For Radiotopia Presents, Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Yooree Losordo is the managing producer. Audrey Mardavich is the Executive Producer. It's a production of PRX's Radiotopia and part of Radiotopia Presents, a podcast feed that debuts limited-run, artist-owned series from new and original voices. For La Central Podcasts, Diego Senior is the Executive Producer. Learn more about Bot Love at radiotopiapresents.fm and discover more shows from across the Radiotopia network at radiotopia.fm.

Living in a new town and following a series of difficult personal experiences, Julie finds a new friend…by creating one using an AI-driven app.  Bot Love is written by Anna Oakes, Mark Pagán, and Diego Senior. Hosted and produced by Anna Oakes and Diego Senior. Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Curtis Fox is the story editor. Sound design by Terence Bernardo and Rebecca Seidel. Bei Wang and Katrina Carter are the associate producers. Cover art by Diego Patiño. Theme song by Maria Linares. Transcripts by Erin Wade. Bot Love was created by Diego Senior.  Support for this project was provided in part by the Ideas Lab at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University. Special thanks to The Moth, Lauren Arora Hutchinson, Director of the Ideas Lab, and Josh Wilcox at the Brooklyn Podcasting Studio, where we recorded these episodes. For Radiotopia Presents, Mark Pagán is the senior producer. Yooree Losordo is the managing producer. Audrey Mardavich is the Executive Producer. It's a production of PRX's Radiotopia and part of Radiotopia Presents, a podcast feed that debuts limited-run, artist-owned series from new and original voices. For La Central Podcasts, Diego Senior is the Executive Producer.   Learn more about Bot Love at radiotopiapresents.fm and discover more shows from across the Radiotopia network at radiotopia.fm.

In this episode of the McKinsey Global Institute's Forward Thinking podcast, Janet Bush talks with Jessica Fanzo. Fanzo is the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Global Food Policy and Ethics at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, the BloombergSchool of Public Health, and the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in the United States. From 2017 to 2019, Fanzo served as the co-chair of the Global Nutrition Report and the UN High Level Panel of Expertson Food Security and Nutrition. She was the first laureate of the Carasso Foundation's Premio Daniel Carasso prize in 2012 for her research on sustainablefood and diets for long-term human health.See www.mckinsey.com/privacy-policy for privacy information

When people are dying and you can only save some, how do you choose? Maybe you save the youngest. Or the sickest. Maybe you even just put all the names in a hat and pick at random. Would your answer change if a sick person was right in front of you? In this episode, first aired back in 2016, we follow New York Times reporter Sheri Fink as she searches for the answer. In a warzone, a hurricane, a church basement, and an earthquake, the question remains the same. What happens, what should happen, when humans are forced to play God? Very special thanks to Lilly Sullivan.  Special thanks also to: Pat Walters and Jim McCutcheon and Todd Menesses from WWL in New Orleans, the researchers for the allocation of scarce resources project in Maryland - Dr. Lee Daugherty Biddison from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Howie Gwon from the Johns Hopkins Medicine Office of Emergency Management, Alan Regenberg of the Berman Institute of Bioethics and Dr. Eric Toner of the UPMC Center for Health Security. Episode Credits: Reported by - Reported by Sheri Fink.Produced by - Produced by Simon Adler and Annie McEwen. Citations: Articles:You can find more about the work going on in Maryland at: www.nytimes.com/triageBooks: The book that inspired this episode about what transpired at Memorial Hospital during Hurricane Katrina, Sheri Fink's exhaustively reported Five Days at Memorial, now a series on Apple TV+. Our newsletter comes out every Wednesday. It includes short essays, recommendations, and details about other ways to interact with the show. Sign up (https://radiolab.org/newsletter)! Radiolab is supported by listeners like you. Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab (https://members.radiolab.org/) today. Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @radiolab, and share your thoughts with us by emailing radiolab@wnyc.org.

On this week's show: Tracing the roots of Long Covid, and an argument against using the same DNA markers for suspects in law enforcement and in research labs for cell lines Two years into the pandemic, we're still uncertain about the impact of Long Covid on the world—and up to 20% of COVID-19 patients might be at risk. First on the podcast this week, Staff Writer Jennifer Couzin-Frankel joins host Sarah Crespi to share a snapshot of the current state of Long Covid research, particularly what researchers think are likely causes. Also this week, Debra Mathews, assistant director for science programs in the Berman Institute of Bioethics and associate professor of genetic medicine at Johns Hopkins University, talks with Sarah about why everyone using the same DNA kits—from FBI to Interpol to research labs—is a bad idea.  Finally, in a sponsored segment from the Science/AAAS Custom Publishing Office, Sean Sanders, director and senior editor for custom publishing, interviews Bobby Soni, chief business officer at the BioInnovation Institute (BII), about what steps scientists can take to successfully commercialize their ideas. This segment is sponsored by BII. This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy. [Image: A. Mastin/Science; Music: Jeffrey Cook] [alt: illustration of potential causes for Long Covid ] Authors: Sarah Crespi; Jennifer Couzin-Frankel Episode page: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add4887 About the Science Podcast: https://www.science.org/content/page/about-science-podcast  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this week's show: Tracing the roots of Long Covid, and an argument against using the same DNA markers for suspects in law enforcement and in research labs for cell lines Two years into the pandemic, we're still uncertain about the impact of Long Covid on the world—and up to 20% of COVID-19 patients might be at risk. First on the podcast this week, Staff Writer Jennifer Couzin-Frankel joins host Sarah Crespi to share a snapshot of the current state of Long Covid research, particularly what researchers think are likely causes. Also this week, Debra Mathews, assistant director for science programs in the Berman Institute of Bioethics and associate professor of genetic medicine at Johns Hopkins University, talks with Sarah about why everyone using the same DNA kits—from FBI to Interpol to research labs—is a bad idea.  Finally, in a sponsored segment from the Science/AAAS Custom Publishing Office, Sean Sanders, director and senior editor for custom publishing, interviews Bobby Soni, chief business officer at the BioInnovation Institute (BII), about what steps scientists can take to successfully commercialize their ideas. This segment is sponsored by BII. This week's episode was produced with help from Podigy. [Image: A. Mastin/Science; Music: Jeffrey Cook] [alt: illustration of potential causes for Long Covid ] Authors: Sarah Crespi; Jennifer Couzin-Frankel Episode page: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add4887 About the Science Podcast: https://www.science.org/content/page/about-science-podcast  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The trauma that the country feels in the aftermath of these all-too-common mass shootings is palpable, raw and not quickly relieved. And imagine what the medical staffs of the hospitals experienced as victims of these attacks are rushed into their facilities. And another kind of trauma continues to afflict them: COVID infection numbers are climbing again. For people who have been vaccinated, there is a tendency to think of the pandemic in the past tense. But for front-line health care workers, it is not at all a thing of the past. Even before hospitals faced the challenges of COVID 19, there were challenges that many health care professionals were unable or unwilling to overcome. In January of this year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that healthcare was among the top three professions in monthly "quits rate." That month alone, 33,000 health care workers quit their jobs, leaving hospitals, and the remaining workers, scrambling. On today's installment of Midday on Ethics, we're going to talk about moral resilienceand why it is such an important component for the people our healthcare is entrusted to. And we'll tell you about The Nurse Antigone Project, a collaborative arts project spotlighting the unique challenges front-line nurses have endured during the COVID pandemic. Tom's guests today are two scholars from the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Dr. Jeffrey Kahn is the director of the Berman Institute, and our regular guest here on Midday for our Midday on Ethics programs. Dr. Jeffrey Kahn join us on Zoom from Baltimore. Dr. Cynda Rushton is the Anne and George L. Bunting Professor of Clinical Ethics at the Institute, and a Professor of Nursing and Pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing. She is the creator of the Rushton Moral Resilience Scale, and the editor and author of Moral Resilience: Transforming Moral Suffering in Healthcare. Dr. Cynda Rushton joins us on Zoom from Boston. The next performance of The Nurse Antigone takes place tonight (Wednesday, May 25), originating in New York City, from 5-7pm. To register for the free Zoom event, click here. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Ruth Faden, Founder of the Berman Institute of Bioethics and Professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, discusses the ethics of Covid booster shots. Bloomberg News Higher-Education Finance Reporter Janet Lorin explains how colleges have embraced a post-SAT future as a result of the pandemic. Bloomberg Markets Senior Editor Mike Regan talks about his Businessweek Magazine cover story A Wild, Emotional Year Has Changed Investing—Maybe Forever. Bloomberg News Finance Reporter Jenny Surane talks about how the omicron variant has wrecked CEOs' plans for U.S. employees returning to work. And we Drive to the Close with Gary Black, Portfolio Manager of the Future Fund Active ETF. Hosts: Carol Massar and Tim Stenovec. Producer: Paul Brennan. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Dr. Ruth Faden, Founder of the Berman Institute of Bioethics and Professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, discusses the ethics of Covid booster shots. Bloomberg News Higher-Education Finance Reporter Janet Lorin explains how colleges have embraced a post-SAT future as a result of the pandemic. Bloomberg Markets Senior Editor Mike Regan talks about his Businessweek Magazine cover story A Wild, Emotional Year Has Changed Investing—Maybe Forever. Bloomberg News Finance Reporter Jenny Surane talks about how the omicron variant has wrecked CEOs' plans for U.S. employees returning to work. And we Drive to the Close with Gary Black, Portfolio Manager of the Future Fund Active ETF. Hosts: Carol Massar and Tim Stenovec. Producer: Paul Brennan. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Sahil and Huda interview Rachel Gur-Arie, a Hecht-Levi Postdoctoral Fellow in Ethics & Infectious Disease at the Berman Institute at John Hopkins University and at the Wellcome Center for Ethics and Humanities at the University of Oxford. She also completed her PhD in Health Systems Management at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU) in Beer Sheva, Israel. In this episode, Rachel Gur-Arie educates us on the ethical issues related to a vaccine mandate, why Israel was one of the first fully vaccinated countries and what makes Israel's vaccine rollout so streamlined as compared to other first world countries. Rachel also expands on the need for transparency when it comes to a vaccine rollout and how a country's government should be communicating with it's citizen when it comes to public health agenda and policies.Finally, we touch on the risks involved with mandating vaccines for children and the ethical issues related to it on a global level.

Hanna Pickard is a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University. She is also appointed with the William H. Miller Department of Philosophy, the Berman Institute of Bioethics, and the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. Her expertise is deep and spread across a wide variety of disciplines. As an analytic philosopher, she specializes in philosophy of mind, philosophy of psychiatry, moral psychology, and clinical ethics. She also worked for a decade at The Oxfordshire Complex Needs Service, a specialist service in the NHS for people diagnosed with personality disorders and complex needs. Her work tends to address the sticky debates that arise in clinical practice. She has over 35 academic publications and has co-edited The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy and Science of Addiction. Pickard maintains an important thread between clinical work in the real world and her philosophical writings, attending to topics like the nature of mental disorders, delusions, agency, character, emotions, self-harm, violence, placebos, therapeutic relationships, decision-making capacity, the self and social identity, and attitudes towards mental disorder and crime. In this interview, she discusses her novel and possibly controversial model for understanding addiction, the numerous shortcomings of the neurobiological model, the importance of centering patient agency, and her work in therapeutic communities.

In this week’s episode, we continue our conversation on pain and the opioid crisis with Professor Travis Rieder, a Philosopher and Bioethicist at the Berman Institute of Bioethics. Having established the historical context leading to the conflicting pain treatment attitudes doctors hold last week, we speak Professor Rieder as he brings out some of the philosophical problems underpinning pain and addiction. How can a doctor know her patient is in pain? How does a patient's appearance impact how valid their claim to pain is perceived to be? Listen to hear about the non-objectivity of pain, "the most obvious principle,” the philosophical implication of an imagined “pain-o-meter”, and much more!

The opioid crisis is destroying livelihoods and communities across the United States. How did we get here and what can we do about it? To help us think through this question, we talk with Professor Travis Rieder, a Philosopher and Bioethicist at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, about his memoir In Pain. In this deeply personal memoir he talks about his experience in dealing with pain and opioids after a motorcycle accident while also detailing the historical foundations of the opioid crisis. In part 1 of 2 of our conversation, Professor Travis Rieder shows us how, historically, opioid use could be characterized as a swinging pendulum, conjugated with periods of liberal and conservative prescription of opioids, and how the present is a precarious time as opioids are being simultaneously overprescribed and underprescribed. We then talk about his own experience of being simultaneously overtreated and undertreated for pain, the subsequent medical mis-guidance he received in tapering off opioids, his resulting struggle with withdrawal, and much more. Join us next week for a philosophical discussion about the problem of pain!

When the food industry promises to police itself and pledges to improve nutrition in public health, can it be trusted to make meaningful change or must government mandate those changes? Our two guests today have done groundbreaking work to help address this very question. Dr. Jessica Fanzo, Professor of Global Food and Agricultural Policy and Ethics at Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Jennifer Harris is Senior Research Advisor for Marketing Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut. Interview Summary So Jess, let's begin with you. You coauthored what I thought was a very important and novel report released by the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition on product reformulation by the food industry. Would you might explain what's meant by reformulation? When we think about reformulation, it's really defined as the process of all-terrain a food or a beverage product. You can alter that by improving the products' health profile or reducing the content of harmful nutrients or ingredients. So it's a process of either removing those negative ingredients or nutrients or adding back positive ones into foods. Why is that done? Because people consume a lot of processed foods. Almost every food that we consume has gone through some form of processing, but there's a whole range of that processing from very minimal to very highly processed, what's often called ultra-processed or junk food that doesn't have a lot of nutritional value. In the report, we were looking at what are the challenges with reformulating food? What are some of the opportunities to reformulate food? And in the realm of reformulation, has it had a positive impact on public health? So we were looking at those aspects of the reformulation of processed foods. So I'm assuming there could be enormous advances to public health if reformulation were done on a broad scale and or if it were done in a meaningful way. So what were your main findings then? Have there been examples of industry being successful with voluntary reformulation? Somewhat. And absolutely it could have potentially really important positive impacts for public health, but it's also not a panacea for improving diets and nutrition. And while there are some examples where voluntary reformulation has had some impact, the UK with salt and some other examples, overall we found that it's important for governments to mandate reformulation through different tools, whether it's labeling, taxes, et cetera. For foods that are not reformulated, we felt that it was really important for governments to mandate with clear, transparent and direct targets, particularly removing the unhealthy ingredients like added sugars, salts, unhealthy fats like trans fats. The food industry should be involved in implementing reformulation policies but not in their design. And governments need to really step in and step up. But that said, that doesn't mean that reformulation is going to solve all the problems. Governments also need to invest in many other tools to protect consumers and to invest in other ways to improve diets for nutrition. So reformulation shouldn't be the only answer. So I'm assuming the reason that food industry won't go far enough on their own is that these things that make the food less healthy also tend to make them pretty palatable, or give them long shelf life or properties that make people enjoy them a lot. And that why in the world would they do something that would make their products less desirable? Does that pretty much the case or do you see other reasons why? That's definitely true. I mean, these highly processed foods are cheap in their ingredients to make, they are very palatable, there's a high demand for them. We're seeing this shift now into low-income countries like with tobacco when consumers catch on that these foods are not so healthy, they go to populations where there's a bit of a lag in that knowledge. But also reformulating foods from the industry's perspective is not so easy. It's quite expensive to do it. It's difficult to reduce salt and sugar, which are vital not only for the taste of foods, but for their composition and shelf-life and texture. So it has a lot of ramifications to remove those ingredients. So meeting government mandates around reformulation can be really challenging and sometimes impossible for companies. So they often will deal with getting a warning label, for the example in Chile, they'll just take the warning label because they can't reformulate some foods. But there's a change in consumer demand and tastes. Consumers like their brands, but the more and more consumers are caring about clean labels, environmental sustainability, their health, people are concerned about the amount of sugar in foods so they're going to have to answer to that, that changing demand as consumers demand better foods whether it's from a health or sustainability or transparency perspective. Let me ask one more question related to this. Is it also the case that it's pretty difficult for some company to be the first out of the gate if they were inclined to do this voluntarily because then their products would become less desirable and their competitors would be kinda stuck in the old ways? So isn't that another argument for government intervening that everybody is on the same playing field? Absolutely, yes. I mean, why not hold every player accountable and to the same standards and mandates? It pushes them all to take action. So when we were interviewing some of the industry players, they really struggle because when they did try to reformulate some of the foods, consumers no longer bought them because they're very wedded to their brands, they're wedded to certain tastes, it's a real challenge for them to keep their consumer base. But at the same time, try to adhere to government mandate. And some companies care more about health and sustainability than others. We definitely learn that some companies have no interest in that, because they know they'll always be a big consumer base for these quote less healthy foods. So there's a real issue from company to company of who's willing to take more action to reformulate and who doesn't really care to reformulate at all and they're willing to live with warning stickers and taxes. So Jennifer, let's turn to you. So you've done really pioneering work on the impact of food marketing on children that began when we were colleagues together at the Rudd Center when it was at Yale University. And there I was witness to the fact that you created a very impressive methodology for studying what's a pretty complicated issue. And you paid a lot of attention to industry promises for self-policing of children's food marketing. Do you mind giving us a quick sense of what's being marketed to who and how, and how much marketing children are exposed to? Annually, companies spend over $13 billion in advertising food to all consumers. And just to put that number in perspective, the whole chronic disease prevention budget at the CDC is 1 billion. So the companies are really controlling the messages about what people should eat. And most of that money is spent to advertise very unhealthy products. The products that are contributing to poor diet and disease in this country. The biggest ones are fast food, sugary drinks, sweet and salty snacks and candy. Those categories represent about 80% of all foods that are advertised. Healthier categories of foods, if you look at all of juice, water, fruits, and vegetables and nuts combined, it's less than 3% of the total. So they're really pushing these very high fat, high sugar, high salt products extensively. Companies spend most of their advertising dollars on television ads. On an annual basis, kids see about 4,000 of those ads per year. So almost 4,000 ads, that's over 10 a day for unhealthy food. Kids of color, so black kids see twice as many of those ads. A lot of the worst products, their advertising is targeted to Black and Hispanic communities and especially adolescents. But TV isn't the only way companies advertise. And in the last few years, the ways that companies market just increased exponentially. Now with smartphones and tablets, they can reach kids any place and any time through things like ads on YouTube videos, social media, smartphone apps, with games and ordering programs, even educational websites teachers are using in grade school have ads on them. This kind of marketing is personalized. So what you see depends on what you do online. They know who you are and they can reach you. And unfortunately, this kind of marketing also is the kind of thing that parents can't monitor as easily as what your child is watching on TV. So the companies basically try to be wherever the consumer is to reach them with their advertising. Well those are really stunning numbers. I know one of the arguments the industry has made for years, and one of the things that you've addressed directly in your research is their claim that this food advertising doesn't really make kids or adults eat an unhealthy diet, it just shifts their preference from brand to brand. So if Coke is advertising a lot, they might say, "Well we just wanna take market share from Pepsi, "but we're not encouraging sugar beverage consumption." What would you say to that? That is something they've argued for a long time. And one thing that we showed is that just watching a television program with food advertising makes kids and adults eat a lot more both while they're watching and afterwards. And another of our colleagues, Ashley Gearhardt has done some really interesting research showing how the food advertising actually activates the reward regions of the brain and leads to increased consumption. So that's one way that food marketing affects more than brand preferences. There's also been a lot of research showing that if you advertise Coke, it increases consumption and purchases of all sugary drinks. They also affect sales of the categories, not just the specific brands. So with you and others doing so much work showing how much of the marketing there is and how disastrous the impact is, you can imagine the industry feels vulnerable to the possibility of outside regulation or perhaps even litigation. And so one of the things the industry has done and this links back to what Jessica was talking about in the context of reformulation, is to say that they can police themselves. So can you explain how they've gone about doing that? Well in the US there's a program called the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, which is the food industry self-regulatory program to address food advertising to kids. And there are similar programs in countries around the world. But basically what the industry has promised is that they will only advertise products that meet nutrition standards in child directed media. That sounds really great. They implemented the program in 2007, but you said Kelly, we've done a lot of research showing how many limitations and loopholes there are in this program. One is that they only define children as 11 years and younger. So they only have promised to reduce unhealthy advertising to young children. And more and more of the research is showing that adolescents are just as affected and maybe even more effected by the advertising. Since their program was implemented, they've increased their advertising to the slightly older group that isn't covered by the CFBAI. Another limitation is their definition of what is child directed is advertising in media where children are the primary audience. So on television that would basically be children's TV. So Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, those kinds of programs. But children watch a lot more television than just children's television. And so they can still advertise anything they want on programs that are also watched by adults and older children. And then the third major limitation is that they've set their own nutrition standards. So they have defined what is healthy. And maybe not surprisingly, a lot of the products that they say are healthier choices that can be advertised to kids are things like sugary cereals, fruit drinks that maybe have less sugar but they also have artificial sweeteners in them. Things like goldfish crackers, fast-food kids' meals, all of those can still be advertised to children under their nutrition standards. What we found is since the program was implemented in 2007, food advertising on children's television has gone down quite a bit, 45%. But at the same time, advertising on other types of television that children watch has gone up about 30%. So now kids see almost as much food advertising as they used to, but most of it is not on children's television, it's on the other kinds of television that they're watching. And a lot of the harder things to monitor, things like apps and social media and websites do not qualify as child directed media under this program. Now the reason I asked both of you to be on this podcast at the same time as I figured there would be interesting similarities, even though you're working on somewhat different topics, and boy does it turn out to be they're real themes weave through this. So let's talk next about what might be done then. So Jessica, with your work on industry reformulation, what have you concluded can be done voluntarily? Kelly, I think government needs to be much more involved than they are. The challenges that we see with voluntary regulation, whether it's in reformulation or marketing of unhealthy foods to children, we know that voluntary reformulation, industry sets its own agenda, they set their own targets, they have no accountability to meet those targets, they may pledge to reduce harmful ingredients but if the product has a very high level of these unhealthy ingredients, the reformulation may not make much of a difference from a public health point of view. So I think we need much more regulation. Governments need to hold industry accountable and ensure that they are meeting national standards for public health. I think government has been too laissez-faire about industry and the power that they hold. And I think now we're seeing the consequences of that not only in the United States, but everywhere in the world with rising levels of obesity and NCDs and unhealthy diets being a big risk factor with these processed foods playing a huge role in that. So we really need to see government step up in a much more profound way and hold industry having public health goals. It's a little bit of enough is enough. So Jess, just out of curiosity, let's say you were the government official in charge of taking such action and you have the authority to do it, where would you start? Would you start with particular nutrients across the food chain or would you start with certain categories of food and would you worry first about sugar, salt, fat? That's a good question. In the paper we outline four types of processed foods. To me I would probably look across the entire food supply chain at those highly, highly processed foods. And it would be good to start with at least the three categories of sugars, salt, and trans fats to even start with and setting key targets for those and marking those ultra-processed foods that go beyond that target. Chile had the great food law that's been enacted that's put warning labels on the front of packages and has regulated I think some of the advertising of those foods. Jennifer you probably know about this. And I think that's been an important case study for the rest of the world to look at of how Chile has done that because sales of those foods that have the warning label have gone down somewhere in the ballpark of I think between 23 and 28%, depending on the population. But I think there's lessons to be learned of how Chile has done that that other governments could learn from. Now I'm happy that you pointed out the advances in Chile because there have been some very impressive impacts reported from the studies that have been done so far. So I agree that that is really a model to look to. So Jennifer, let's just get your opinion on this. Where do you come down on this issue of voluntary versus mandated? So we've given the industry 12 years now to show that they can market healthier products to kids. And basically what they've done is they're marketing slightly healthier products to kids but the products they're marketing are not nutritious products that children should be consuming a lot of like sugared cereals. So it's pretty clear that they can't do it on their own and that regulation is required. In the US, we have a little bit of an issue that not all countries have because of the First Amendment. And advertising is protected speech according to the Supreme Court. So we can't just say companies cannot advertise anything. So we have to be more strategic about the kinds of regulations that we can implement here. If we could do anything we wanted, Chile is a great example. In the next year, they won't be able to advertise any products that are high in fat, sugar and salt before 9:00 p.m. So it's not just children's programming, they won't be able to advertise it. They had to take all their characters off their packages. And so Tony the Tiger can't be on the package of frosted flakes anymore because it's high in sugar. They've done a lot of great things in Chile and sure we can adapt some of what they've done. In other countries also, for example the UK has very strong laws about marketing foods in digital media. So that would be another thing that we could import from other countries.   Bios   Jessica Fanzo, Ph.D., is the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Global Food Policy and Ethics at the Berman Institute of Bioethics, the Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at the Johns Hopkins University in the USA. She also serves as the Director of Hopkins' Global Food Policy and Ethics Program, and as Director of Food & Nutrition Security at the JHU Alliance for a Healthier World.  From 2017 to 2019, Jessica served as the Co-Chair of the Global Nutrition Report and the UN High Level Panel of Experts on Food Systems and Nutrition. Before coming to Hopkins, she has also held positions at Columbia University, the Earth Institute, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Food Programme, Bioversity International, and the Millennium Development Goal Centre at the World Agroforestry Center in Kenya. She was the first laureate of the Carasso Foundation's Sustainable Diets Prize in 2012 for her research on sustainable food and diets for long-term human health. Jennifer Harris, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Advisor, Marketing Initiatives at the Rudd Center. Previously, Dr. Harris worked as Director of Marketing Initiatives and was an Associate Professor in Allied Health Sciences at the University of Connecticut. Harris received her B.A. from Northwestern University and M.B.A. in Marketing from The Wharton School. Before returning to graduate school, she was a marketing executive for eighteen years, including at American Express as a Vice President in consumer marketing and as principal in a marketing strategy consulting firm. Harris completed her PhD in Social Psychology at Yale University with John Bargh and Kelly Brownell.

Published on 22 Aug 2016. When people are dying and you can only save some, how do you choose? Maybe you save the youngest. Or the sickest. Maybe you even just put all the names in a hat and pick at random. Would your answer change if a sick person was standing right in front of you? In this episode, we follow New York Times reporter Sheri Fink as she searches for the answer. In a warzone, a hurricane, a church basement, and an earthquake, the question remains the same. What happens, what should happen, when humans are forced to play god? Produced by Simon Adler and Annie McEwen. Reported by Sheri Fink.  In the book that inspired this episode you can find more about what transpired at Memorial Hospital during Hurricane Katrina, Sheri Fink’s exhaustively reported Five Days at Memorial You can find more about the work going on in Maryland at: www.nytimes.com/triage Very special thanks to Lilly Sullivan.  Special thanks also to: Pat Walters and Jim McCutcheon and Todd Menesses from WWL in New Orleans, the researchers for the allocation of scarce resources project in Maryland - Dr. Lee Daugherty Biddison from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Howie Gwon from the Johns Hopkins Medicine Office of Emergency Management, Alan Regenberg of the Berman Institute of Bioethics and Dr. Eric Toner of the UPMC Center for Health Security. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate.    

Dr. Michelle Huckaby Lewis, MD, JD, is a pediatrician and an attorney with training in bioethics and health services research. She joined the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University in 2010. Her research and publications focus on the intersection of law, medicine, and health, with a particular emphasis on the ethical and legal implications of genomic research. Her current work focuses on ethical and legal issues in four main areas: 1) the retention and use of residual newborn screening dried blood samples, 2) communication about genomic information, 3) data sharing and governance, and 4) the application of genomic technology to clinical and public health decision-making in the management of infectious disease. She currently serves on the Steering Committee of the Newborn Screening Translational Research Network (NBSTRN) and as Co-Chair of the NBSTRN Bioethics and Legal Issues Work Group. Read More Dr. Lewis received a BA degree in English and History from Stanford University before earning her JD degree from Vanderbilt University School of Law. After law school, she worked on Capitol Hill as a Legislative Assistant for Congressman Bob Clement from Tennessee. While working on Capitol Hill, she was appointed to the White Task Force on Health Care Reform during the Clinton Administration. She served on work groups related to Health Insurance Reform and Medical Malpractice Reform. Dr. Lewis then attended Tulane University School of Medicine and received her MD degree. She completed a residency in Pediatrics at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. She completed the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program at Johns Hopkins University and the Greenwall Fellowship Program in Bioethics and Health Policy at Johns Hopkins University and Georgetown University.

Casey Jo Humbyrd, MD, is an Associate Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery in the School of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University. She is an Associate Faculty Member of the Berman Institute of Bioethics, and she completed a Masters of Bioethics at the Berman Institute. Dr. Humbyrd received her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania and her M.D. from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. During medical school, she participated in a month-long ethics fellowship at the University of Oxford.  After medical school, Dr. Humbyrd completed her residency in Orthopaedic Surgery at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine followed by a foot and ankle fellowship at Mercy Medical Center. Dr. Humbyrd’s research interest focus on ethical concerns related to surgery in general and orthopedic surgery in particular. Her current primary research interest revolves around the ethics of bundled payment programs for total joint replacement, ethical use of opioids in orthopedic surgery, and disparities in access to orthopedic care. She is a quarterly columnist on orthopedic ethical issues for the journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. Nationally, she is involved in advocacy work as a delegate to the American Medical Association and Chair of the health policy committee of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Dr. Humbyrd is also the faculty advisor for the Johns Hopkins medical student section of MedChi and the AMA.

Regardless of whether schools kick off online, in person, or with a hybrid approach this fall, there will be learning disruptions to consider. Dr. Ruth Faden of the Berman Institute of Bioethics and Dr. Annette Anderson of the Johns Hopkins School of Education talk with Stephanie Desmon about now COVID-19 is exacerbating growing inequities around achievement, development, and graduation rates, how under-resourced schools could rethink instruction, and the data still needed to show policymakers definitive gaps in learning loss.

In the midst of a global pandemic and widespread quarantine―when every day seems like Shabbat―how do we preserve the sanctity of our cherished sanctuary in time and space? Zackary Sholem Berger, MD, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Johns Hopkins Division of General Internal Medicine and Core Faculty in the Berman Institute of Bioethics, with joint appointment at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. A clinical epidemiologist, bioethicist, and practicing primary care physician, Zack is the author of two books for the lay public on doctor-patient communication and on patient preference in the context of medical evidence. He is also the co-founder of Clinicians for Progressive Care. Special thanks to our executive producer, Adina Karp.View a source sheet for this episode here.Keep up with Interleaved on Facebook and Twitter.Music from https://filmmusic.io"Midnight Tale" by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.com)License: CC BY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

"We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself!" That was President Donald Trump, this week, explaining why he was thinking about lifting coronavirus guidelines earlier than public-health experts recommended. The "cure," in this case, is social distancing, and the mass economic stoppage it forces. The problem, of course, is COVID-19, and the millions of deaths it could cause. This is a debate that needs to be taken seriously. Slowing coronavirus will impose real costs, and immense suffering, on society. Are those costs worth it? This is the most important public policy question right now. And if the discussion isn't had well, then it will be had, as we're already seeing, poorly, and dangerously. I wanted to take up this question from two different angles. The first dimension is economic: Are we actually facing a choice between lives and economic growth? If we ceased social distancing, could we sustain a normal economy amidst a raging virus? Jason Furman, professor of the practice of economic policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School and President Obama's former chief economist, joins me for that discussion. But the economy isn't everything. What is a moral framework we can us when faced with this kind of question? So, in the second half of this show, I talk to Dr. Ruth Faden, the founder of the Berman Institute for Bioethics at Johns Hopkins. And then, at the end, I offer some thoughts on my own on the frightening moment we're living through, and the kind of political and social leadership it demands. Confused about coronavirus? Here’s a list of the articles, papers, and podcasts we’ve found most useful. New to the show? Want to check out Ezra’s favorite episodes? Check out the Ezra Klein Show beginner’s guide (http://bit.ly/EKSbeginhere) Credits: Producer/Editor - Jeff Geld Researcher - Roge Karma Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dr. Zachary Berger is an associate professor in the Johns Hopkins Division of General Internal Medicine at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. Dr. Berger also serves joint appointment in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Dr. Berger's clinical, educational, and research work focuses on the intersection of shared decision making, evidence-based medicine, and patient-center care. Dr. Begers works to understand the patient-physician relationship through the lenses of social and political inequities of our health system. Dr. Berger is Core Faculty in the Berman Institute of Bioethics, Evidence-Based Practice Center, and the Center for Health Services and Outcomes research. We are excited to feature his perspective on career paths in medicine and bioethics! 

When I was at the bench doing science experiments, bioethics tended to be an afterthought for me; in public health--which is basically deciding for communities how to best promote well-being--bioethics is (or should be) at the core. Dr. Travis Rieder, our latest podcast guest, is a bioethicist at the Berman Institute for Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University and emphasizes that we should not be making public health policy without bringing in ethical and moral discussions. Using abortion as an example, Nina and Travis discuss how we can move policy and discussions forward in a respectful way in our deeply pluralistic Democracy and society, which tend to oversimplify public health issues into black and white camps that demonize the other viewpoint. We as a society need to move past these debates to find common ground so we can move forward and make progress. What's the common ground? Listen to find out! Check out our show links at www.publichealthunited.org and follow us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook at PHUpodcast.

When people are dying and you can only save some, how do you choose? Maybe you save the youngest. Or the sickest. Maybe you even just put all the names in a hat and pick at random. Would your answer change if a sick person was standing right in front of you? In this episode, we follow New York Times reporter Sheri Fink as she searches for the answer. In a warzone, a hurricane, a church basement, and an earthquake, the question remains the same. What happens, what should happen, when humans are forced to play god? Produced by Simon Adler and Annie McEwen. Reported by Sheri Fink.  In the book that inspired this episode you can find more about what transpired at Memorial Hospital during Hurricane Katrina, Sheri Fink’s exhaustively reported Five Days at Memorial You can find more about the work going on in Maryland at: www.nytimes.com/triage Very special thanks to Lilly Sullivan.  Special thanks also to: Pat Walters and Jim McCutcheon and Todd Menesses from WWL in New Orleans, the researchers for the allocation of scarce resources project in Maryland - Dr. Lee Daugherty Biddison from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Howie Gwon from the Johns Hopkins Medicine Office of Emergency Management, Alan Regenberg of the Berman Institute of Bioethics and Dr. Eric Toner of the UPMC Center for Health Security. Support Radiolab by becoming a member today at Radiolab.org/donate.    

What are the moral obligations a researcher has when she conducts research in an international setting? Dr. Nancy Kass, Phoebe R. Berman Professor of Bioethics and Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, believes that the core issues in international research ethics stem from the injustices that exist around the world and the special challenges faced when research is conducted in environments with limited resources. Even if researchers have a good idea of how to improve health conditions in a developing nation, questions of autonomy and justice are still at stake. We still must ask whether we should implement long-term research protocols that might only marginally improve the immediate situation or whether we should intervene systemically to help a greater number of people in the short term. Who is Nancy Kass? Nancy Kass, ScD, is the Phoebe R. Berman Professor ofNancy Kass Bioethics and Public Health, in the Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Deputy Director for Public Health in the Berman Institute of Bioethics. In 2009-2010, Dr. Kass was based in Geneva, Switzerland, where she was working with the World Health Organization (WHO) Ethics Review Committee Secretariat. Dr. Kass received her BA from Stanford University, completed doctoral training in health policy from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and was awarded a National Research Service Award to complete a postdoctoral fellowship in bioethics at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University. Dr. Kass conducts empirical work in bioethics and health policy. Her publications are primarily in the field of U.S. and international research ethics, ethics and learning health care systems, HIV/AIDS ethics policy, public health ethics, and ethics of public health preparedness. She is co-editor of HIV, AIDS and Childbearing: Public Policy, Private Lives (Oxford University Press, 1996). Dr. Kass co-chaired the National Cancer Institute Committee to develop Recommendations for Informed Consent Documents for Cancer Clinical Trials, and served on the NCI’s central IRB. She has served as consultant to the President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, and to the National Academy of Sciences. Current research projects examine ethics for a learning healthcare system including quality improvement and comparative effectiveness, informed consent in randomized trials, ethics issues that arise in international health research and ethics and public health preparedness. Dr. Kass teaches the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s course on U.S. and International Research Ethics and Integrity, is the director of the School’s PhD program in bioethics and health policy, and is the director of the Johns Hopkins Fogarty African Bioethics Training Program. Dr. Kass is an elected member of the Institute of Medicine and a Fellow of the Hastings Center.

This presentation will outline the expectations and norms for research ethics generally and how they play out in some examples from low and middle income countries. Data will be presented from two studies: one with U.S. based researchers who conduct research in low and middle income countries about the ethics and IRB issues they have faced, and one with participants from clinical trials in LMIC settings. The presentation will then move to describing a large Fogarty-funded and Africa-based training program in research ethics, what it has tried to accomplish, what the successes and challenges have been, and strategies to evaluating such training programs. For an audio podcast preview, listen to The Rock's Podcasts. Nancy Kass, ScD, is the Phoebe R. Berman Professor of Nancy Kass Bioethics and Public Health, in the Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Deputy Director for Public Health in the Berman Institute of Bioethics. In 2009-2010, Dr. Kass was based in Geneva, Switzerland, where she was working with the World Health Organization (WHO) Ethics Review Committee Secretariat. Dr. Kass received her BA from Stanford University, completed doctoral training in health policy from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and was awarded a National Research Service Award to complete a postdoctoral fellowship in bioethics at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University. Dr. Kass conducts empirical work in bioethics and health policy. Her publications are primarily in the field of U.S. and international research ethics, ethics and learning health care systems, HIV/AIDS ethics policy, public health ethics, and ethics of public health preparedness. She is co-editor of HIV, AIDS and Childbearing: Public Policy, Private Lives (Oxford University Press, 1996). Dr. Kass co-chaired the National Cancer Institute Committee to develop Recommendations for Informed Consent Documents for Cancer Clinical Trials, and served on the NCI’s central IRB. She has served as consultant to the President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, and to the National Academy of Sciences. Current research projects examine ethics for a learning healthcare system including quality improvement and comparative effectiveness, informed consent in randomized trials, ethics issues that arise in international health research and ethics and public health preparedness. Dr. Kass teaches the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s course on U.S. and International Research Ethics and Integrity, is the director of the School’s PhD program in bioethics and health policy, and is the director of the Johns Hopkins Fogarty African Bioethics Training Program. Dr. Kass is an elected member of the Institute of Medicine and a Fellow of the Hastings Center.

International Research Ethics: Experiences of researchers and participants in the field, and moving forward with ethics training This presentation will outline the expectations and norms for research ethics generally and how they play out in some examples from low and middle income countries. Data will be presented from two studies: one with U.S. based researchers who conduct research in low and middle income countries about the ethics and IRB issues they have faced, and one with participants from clinical trials in LMIC settings. The presentation will then move to describing a large Fogarty-funded and Africa-based training program in research ethics, what it has tried to accomplish, what the successes and challenges have been, and strategies to evaluating such training programs. Nancy Kass Nancy Kass, ScD, is the Phoebe R. Berman Professor ofNancy Kass Bioethics and Public Health, in the Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Deputy Director for Public Health in the Berman Institute of Bioethics. In 2009-2010, Dr. Kass was based in Geneva, Switzerland, where she was working with the World Health Organization (WHO) Ethics Review Committee Secretariat. Dr. Kass received her BA from Stanford University, completed doctoral training in health policy from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and was awarded a National Research Service Award to complete a postdoctoral fellowship in bioethics at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University. Dr. Kass conducts empirical work in bioethics and health policy. Her publications are primarily in the field of U.S. and international research ethics, ethics and learning health care systems, HIV/AIDS ethics policy, public health ethics, and ethics of public health preparedness. She is co-editor of HIV, AIDS and Childbearing: Public Policy, Private Lives (Oxford University Press, 1996). Dr. Kass co-chaired the National Cancer Institute Committee to develop Recommendations for Informed Consent Documents for Cancer Clinical Trials, and served on the NCI’s central IRB. She has served as consultant to the President’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, and to the National Academy of Sciences. Current research projects examine ethics for a learning healthcare system including quality improvement and comparative effectiveness, informed consent in randomized trials, ethics issues that arise in international health research and ethics and public health preparedness. Dr. Kass teaches the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s course on U.S. and International Research Ethics and Integrity, is the director of the School’s PhD program in bioethics and health policy, and is the director of the Johns Hopkins Fogarty African Bioethics Training Program. Dr. Kass is an elected member of the Institute of Medicine and a Fellow of the Hastings Center.

Dr. Mary Catherine Beach describes fundamental problems and solutions in doctor-patient communication. Dr. Beach is Associate Professor in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Core Faculty, Berman Institute of Bioethics and Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research at Johns Hopkins University. Her research interests include physician-patient relationships and communication, respect, bioethics, health […] The post Getting Better Health Care – The fundamentals of doctor-patient communication (Part 2) appeared first on WebTalkRadio.net.

Dr. Mary Catherine Beach describes fundamental problems and solutions in doctor-patient communication. Dr. Beach is Associate Professor in the Division of General Internal Medicine and Core Faculty, Berman Institute of Bioethics and Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research at Johns Hopkins University. Her research interests include physician-patient relationships and communication, respect, bioethics, health […] The post Getting Better Health Care – The fundamentals of doctor-patient communication (Part 1) appeared first on WebTalkRadio.net.