PANEL DISCUSSION: "Medical Ethics, Eugenics, and the Holocaust"

A panel discussion moderated by Dr. Thomas R. Cole, McGovern Chair in Medical Humanities and Director of the John P. McGovern Center for Humanities and Ethics at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. Panelists include: Rabbi Samuel E. Karff, Rabbi Emeritus of Congregation Beth Israel and Associate Director of the John P. McGovern Center for Humanities and Ethics and Visiting Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at the Texas Medical Center. Cardinal DiNardo, the second Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston and the first cardinal archbishop from a diocese in the Southern United States. Dr. Sheldon Rubenfeld, Clinical Professor of Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. He is Board Certified in Internal Medicine and in Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, and is a Fellow in both the American College of Physicians and the American College of Endocrinology. Dr. Rubenfeld has taught "Healing by Killing: Medicine During the Third Reich" for three years and "Jewish Medical Ethics" for seven years at Baylor College of Medicine. He created a six-month program about Medicine and the Holocaust at Holocaust Museum Houston, including an exhibit entitled How Healing Becomes Killing: Eugenics, Euthanasia, Extermination and a series of lectures by distinguished speakers entitled "The Michael E. DeBakey Medical Ethics Lecture Series".

Planning and implementation efficacy as a determinant of health risk communication outcomes: Case studies of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)

This study was conducted under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Risk Communication and Education of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs (CCEHRP) to determine how Public Health Service (PHS) agencies are communicating information about health risk, what factors contributed to effective communication efforts, and what specific principles, strategies, and practices best promote more effective health risk communication outcomes.^ Member agencies of the Subcommittee submitted examples of health risk communication activities or decisions they perceived to be effective and some examples of cases they thought had not been as effective as desired. Of the 10 case studies received, 7 were submitted as examples of effective health risk communication, and 3, as examples of less effective communication.^ Information contained in the 10 case studies describing the respective agencies' health risk communication strategies and practices was compared with EPA's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication, since similar rules were not found in any PHS agency. EPA's rules are: (1) Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner. (2) Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts. (3) Listen to the public's specific concerns. (4) Be honest, frank, and open. (5) Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources. (6) Meet the needs of the media. (7) Speak clearly and with compassion.^ On the basis of case studies analysis, the Subcommittee, in their attempts to design and implement effective health risk communication campaigns, identified a number of areas for improvement among the agencies. First, PHS agencies should consider developing a focus specific to health risk communication (i.e., office or specialty resource). Second, create a set of generally accepted practices and guidelines for effective implementation and evaluation of PHS health risk communication activities and products. Third, organize interagency initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and visibility of health risk communication issues and trends within and between PHS agencies.^ PHS agencies identified some specific implementation strategies the CCEHRP might consider pursuing to address the major recommendations. Implementation strategies common to PHS agencies emerged in the following five areas: (1) program development, (2) building partnerships, (3) developing training, (4) expanding information technologies, and (5) conducting research and evaluation. ^