The five most popular Bioethics News stories from the week of Feb 25
Here are the most popular Bioethics News items from last week based on average clicks per day:
1. Public warms to the phrase "socialized medicine"
(LA Times) A recent survey reports that the phrase no longer conjures negative images for many Americans. Except Republicans -- 70 percent of those polled still think "socialized medicine" would make the health system worse.
2. Ads with your health records
(USA Today) Google says its health records service won't initially include ads, but didn't rule them out in the future. One analyst says advertisers would pay "absurd amounts of money" for such ad space.
3. Hearings begin in organ harvesting case
(New York Times) A California doctor is accused of speeding the death of patient so a transplant team could retrieve the patient's organs. The president of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons called the case unprecedented.
4. First of three Wisconsin stem cell patents upheld
(AP) The trio of patents, held by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, cover human embryonic stem cells and the techniques used to isolate them. The patent office has yet to rule on challenges to the other two patents.
5. Jarvik's Lipitor ads canceled
(New York Times) Pfizer is pulling them after Congressional scrutiny focused on the fact that Robert Jarvik is not a licensed medical doctor. Apparently, he's not a kayaker, either -- even though the ad shows him rowing one.
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
Can I ask why you say "the public" is warming to the idea of socialized medicine, when 70% of Republicans don't want it? We're chopped liver?
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Mar 3, 2008 at 6:48 PM | link
We're chopped liver?
Not at all. Perhaps "public" was too expansive a term. From the article in the LAT:
To find out, his team, along with pollsters at Harris Interactive, asked more than 2,000 people in two surveys what they knew about the term. Among the findings, released Feb. 14:
* Of the respondents, 67% said they understood what "socialized medicine" meant. Of those, 79% said the term means that the government makes sure everyone has health insurance. Only 32% said it means that the government tells doctors what to do.
* Of those who said they understand the term, 45% said that if America had socialized medicine, the health care system would be better, while 39% said it would be worse.
* Not surprisingly, opinions differed according to respondents' politics. Among Republicans, 70% thought socialized medicine would make the healthcare system worse. Among Democrats, 70% thought it would make things better.
Independents were split more evenly, with 45% saying that socialized medicine would be an improvement, and 38% saying it would be worse than the country's current healthcare system.
"It's still an emotionally charged term for Republicans. The phrase itself gets them very angry," Blendon says. "But Democrats and independents don't see it as a term that drives them away."
- by Greg on Mar 4, 2008 at 12:04 AM | link
Yes, I read all that.
I get the impression sometimes that some people think that "people" are Democrats and that Republicans are some inexplicable fringe that inconveniently pops up here and there.
Don't you think "79% said the term means that the government makes sure everyone has health insurance." is a little simplistic? How exactly is the government going to do that? What if everybody doesn't think he has to have health insurance, and doesn't want to pay for it? What will happen to my choices, and what will happen to my taxes? Didn't Hillary's original plan have some component of the government telling doctors what to do? Can we be sure that whatever we get won't slide into that? When the government gives us something, that something doesn't float down from heaven like manna. If the "public" embraces the idea that someone is going to give it something, without asking any questions about where that's going to come from and what all the changes will be, I'm not sure that's something to be happy about.
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Mar 4, 2008 at 8:25 AM | link