Week 10 - Surveillance

The topic of this class I found extremely interesting (not just because I gave a presentation!) for one reason that we never really discussed. We established that surveillance systems as they are now are not as effective as they ought to be, so vast improvement is needed. However, we really didn't get in to how to balance surveillance and personal privacy/individual rights. This will undoubtedly interfere with the ability to implement effective systems in the future as people will not want to give up their privacy. I think the only way to convince people that surveillance is necessary and to construct a system that works, will be to exhibit a transparency in information and procedures as well as a build a structure that is mindful of personal privacy. While steps must be taken to assure safety and prevent widespread panic, better and more in depth information must be available to establish a solid and trustworthy rapport between agencies and organizations and the public. The SARS problem in China is a perfect example. Because the government's immediate reaction was to hide what was going on, not only did the disease spread more quickly and through more people than necessary, but a feeling of mistrust was bred. We also discussed this same issue in relation to airlines and health emergencies. I see the reason for airport scanners that detect certain heat signals within the human body when illness is present, but is this a violation of personal privacy? And as a member of the public, how do I trust those machines, the people running them, and what happens to the information they collect? Already we have given up rights written up in the Bill of Rights upon which this country was founded in the name of national security, but is this right? A balance must be established between personal privacy and national security, especially when it comes to health. Health is a personal thing, but also a global thing, and as many other countries have defined it: a human right. Before we can moved forward with an effective plan for surveillance, the rights to both health and privacy should be recognized on a global level.

Week 9 - E-Health and more

This class was no less exciting than the others with innovation in case study facilitation presented in video format (great job Lawrence and Jordan!), and heated debate over the merits of remote physician-patient contact. I just have to say that I thought it was a great idea to use a different medium for facilitation since the long drawn out presentations, while informative, can be hard to follow after 3 hours of intense conversation. There are my two cents on that!
As for the idea of email, phone, and other types of remote communication between doctor and patient, I have mixed opinions. I think this could really facilitate relationships and efficiency in doctor-patient care, if done right. On the other hand it could distance people more than they already are, potentially depersonalizing communication. Ultimately, with the right balance I think this could really work. Email and sites like Myspace have actually brought people together, albeit in a way people 20 years ago probably couldn't have imagined. This would necessitate some multi-tasking on the part of certain office personnel, but it may also create new jobs and allow doctors and other medical professionals to help more people who need care. The home monitoring linked to online vitals tracking presented in the case study video seemed to be a great solution to many problems relating to seeing patients with serious conditions who can't all be seen at once. At the same time, it gives them the ability to monitor their own progress and take some responsibility in overcoming their illness. Because of this, I am in favor of these progressions in health communication.
Of course steps would have to be taken to make sure patients were still seen in person periodically and to prevent abuse of the system. But I guess this is like any other technological augmentation of a system. Check and balances are in order.

Week 8 - Innovation in Technoloy, the Road to Solutions?

After spending seven weeks discussing the major health issues of the world, it is a breath of fresh air to begin really discussing potential solutions. All of the presentations discussed technologies for improvement in biomedical sciences affecting many areas of life, and it was impressive to hear about the ideas that improved communication, access to care, and delivery of aid. Many of these inventions seem like no-brainers, but when I was listening to Farah's presentation and she mentioned one of the con's of Genetically Modified Crops it dawned on me that we really haven't touched much on the topic of ethics and whether we should be using these technologies. This has also come up in my research for my paper on the Implications of Intellectual Property Rights on Public Health. We are always asking questions to find solutions to problems: what is the problem, how can we address it, what is the best way, who is involved?? But we rarely ask: what are the implications for the future and how will this affect our environment on all levels?? These are questions no one asked during the industrial revolution and look what happened. That's not to say that what is arising from the Age of Technology isn't good, but we need more people, especially the innovators and inventors, to ask the tough, ethical questions that have to be addressed or we could end up in an even bigger mess. This is something that is not necessarily attended to in the patent/IP process and one point I will be examining in my paper, should we incorporate more of an ethics review into the patent process and even require this in the course of R&D? While there are some ethical hurdles an invention must overcome before a patent is granted, there are also many loop holes. Recently, a diagnostic test for locating a certain gene known to cause cancer in a particular group of Jewish women was granted a patent even after many appeals and controversy. Now the women who need or want to be tested have to go through this specific company or one of its designated subsidiaries and pay four times the amount of what this kind of test costs for other people, just to get a yes or no that could possibly save a life. We are also facing this problem with vaccines for flu, certain infectious diseases, and much more. So where do we draw the line???