Critics say companies could acquire personal information that would identify NHS patients without their consent
By Jaime Doward
The Observer
Originally published February 16, 2013
Private firms will soon be able to buy people's medical and genetic data without their consent and, in certain cases, acquire personal information that might enable them to identify individuals.
The revelation, which contradicts government claims that such material would be completely anonymous, has raised fears that pharmaceutical firms and insurance companies will be able to determine the identities of people susceptible to particular diseases. It has prompted claims that fundamental changes to the use of NHS patient data are being introduced without adequate public debate or regulatory oversight.
The government is keen for Britain to be at the forefront of the genetic revolution, a potential multibillion-pound industry. Last year David Cameron launched a £100m scheme to map the genomes of up to 100,000 people, saying it would help to save lives by delivering new treatments. The move was seen as the first step in the construction of a national human genome database.
Under the scheme, firms would be able to access the information at a cost, but ministers insist that all data will be strictly anonymous. However, material released under the Freedom of Information Act reveals that firms can invoke an appeal process to demand "patient-identifiable data", such as age and postcode.
The entire story is here.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Monday, March 4, 2013
Anti-human-trafficking efforts gain momentum
New policies and new laws on human trafficking are spreading across several states
By Yamiche Alcindor
USA TODAY
Originally posted on February 16, 2013
A growing wave of efforts to stop human trafficking has spread across the country as lawmakers and others look to combat the problem through law, policy, and grass-roots activism.
While approaches vary, advocates say more must be done to stop the crime, dubbed "modern day slavery" and defined by the U.S. State Department as the recruitment, transportation or harboring of people by means of deception or coercion. Victims, often mentally and physically abused, can be forced into prostitution, unfair working conditions, or other exploitative situations.
"Consciousness and outrage have reached a different level because of the perverseness but also the impact of human trafficking," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. "People understand that everyone has a responsibility to fight human trafficking and every individual can have an impact."
The entire story is here.
By Yamiche Alcindor
USA TODAY
Originally posted on February 16, 2013
A growing wave of efforts to stop human trafficking has spread across the country as lawmakers and others look to combat the problem through law, policy, and grass-roots activism.
While approaches vary, advocates say more must be done to stop the crime, dubbed "modern day slavery" and defined by the U.S. State Department as the recruitment, transportation or harboring of people by means of deception or coercion. Victims, often mentally and physically abused, can be forced into prostitution, unfair working conditions, or other exploitative situations.
"Consciousness and outrage have reached a different level because of the perverseness but also the impact of human trafficking," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. "People understand that everyone has a responsibility to fight human trafficking and every individual can have an impact."
The entire story is here.
Advocates Seek Mental Health Changes, Including Power to Detain
By BRANDI GRISSOM
The Texas Tribune/The New York Times
Published: February 23, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
Mr. Thomas, who confessed to the murders of his wife, their son and her daughter by another man, was convicted in 2005 and sentenced to death at age 21. While awaiting trial in 2004, he gouged out one of his eyes, and in 2008 on death row, he removed the other and ate it.
At least twice in the three weeks before the crime, Mr. Thomas had sought mental health treatment, babbling illogically and threatening to commit suicide. On two occasions, staff members at the medical facilities were so worried that his psychosis made him a threat to himself or others that they sought emergency detention warrants for him.
Despite talk of suicide and bizarre biblical delusions, he was not detained for treatment. Mr. Thomas later told the police that he was convinced that Ms. Boren was the wicked Jezebel from the Bible, that his own son was the Antichrist and that Leyha was involved in an evil conspiracy with them.
He was on a mission from God, he said, to free their hearts of demons.
Hospitals do not have legal authority to detain people who voluntarily enter their facilities in search of mental health care but then decide to leave. It is one of many holes in the state’s nearly 30-year-old mental health code that advocates, police officers and judges say lawmakers need to fix. In a report last year, Texas Appleseed, a nonprofit advocacy organization, called on lawmakers to replace the existing code with one that reflects contemporary mental health needs.
(cut)
Hospital officials say they face a Catch-22 under current law: if they detain a mentally ill person against his or her will, they face liability because they have no legal authority to do so. If they allow the person to leave and something tragic happens, they risk a lawsuit like the one the Boren family filed.
The entire story is here.
The Texas Tribune/The New York Times
Published: February 23, 2013
Here are some excerpts:
Mr. Thomas, who confessed to the murders of his wife, their son and her daughter by another man, was convicted in 2005 and sentenced to death at age 21. While awaiting trial in 2004, he gouged out one of his eyes, and in 2008 on death row, he removed the other and ate it.
At least twice in the three weeks before the crime, Mr. Thomas had sought mental health treatment, babbling illogically and threatening to commit suicide. On two occasions, staff members at the medical facilities were so worried that his psychosis made him a threat to himself or others that they sought emergency detention warrants for him.
Despite talk of suicide and bizarre biblical delusions, he was not detained for treatment. Mr. Thomas later told the police that he was convinced that Ms. Boren was the wicked Jezebel from the Bible, that his own son was the Antichrist and that Leyha was involved in an evil conspiracy with them.
He was on a mission from God, he said, to free their hearts of demons.
Hospitals do not have legal authority to detain people who voluntarily enter their facilities in search of mental health care but then decide to leave. It is one of many holes in the state’s nearly 30-year-old mental health code that advocates, police officers and judges say lawmakers need to fix. In a report last year, Texas Appleseed, a nonprofit advocacy organization, called on lawmakers to replace the existing code with one that reflects contemporary mental health needs.
(cut)
Hospital officials say they face a Catch-22 under current law: if they detain a mentally ill person against his or her will, they face liability because they have no legal authority to do so. If they allow the person to leave and something tragic happens, they risk a lawsuit like the one the Boren family filed.
The entire story is here.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Essential Knowledge about Suicide Prevention
The New York Psychological Association
Published on Jan 31, 2013
"Essential Knowledge about Suicide Prevention-Evidence-Based Practices for Mental Health Professionals," sponsored by the NYS Psychological Association and the NYS OMH Suicide Prevention Initiative provides concepts and resources for clinicians as a starting point to build competency and preparedness for a suicide event, before it becomes a reality. Featuring Dr. Richard Juman, Dr. John Draper and Dr. Shane Owens, the video addresses issues including clinician anxiety about suicide, suicide and professional liability, and core competencies for suicide prevention in clinical practices, providing perspectives from both experts and clinicians.
NAASP: Clinical Care & Intervention Task Force Report
As Families Change, Korea’s Elderly Are Turning to Suicide
By Choe Sang-Hun
The New York Times
Originally published February 16, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
The woman’s death is part of one of South Korea’s grimmest statistics: the number of people 65 and older committing suicide, which has nearly quadrupled in recent years, making the country’s rate of such deaths among the highest in the developed world. The epidemic is the counterpoint to the nation’s runaway economic success, which has worn away at the Confucian social contract that formed the bedrock of Korean culture for centuries.
That contract was built on the premise that parents would do almost anything to care for their children — in recent times, depleting their life savings to pay for a good education — and then would end their lives in their children’s care. No Social Security system was needed. Nursing homes were rare.
But as South Korea’s hard-charging younger generations joined an exodus from farms to cities in recent decades, or simply found themselves working harder in the hypercompetitive environment that helped drive the nation’s economic miracle, their parents were often left behind. Many elderly people now live out their final years poor, in rural areas with the melancholy feel of ghost towns.
The entire story is here.
The New York Times
Originally published February 16, 2013
Here is an excerpt:
The woman’s death is part of one of South Korea’s grimmest statistics: the number of people 65 and older committing suicide, which has nearly quadrupled in recent years, making the country’s rate of such deaths among the highest in the developed world. The epidemic is the counterpoint to the nation’s runaway economic success, which has worn away at the Confucian social contract that formed the bedrock of Korean culture for centuries.
That contract was built on the premise that parents would do almost anything to care for their children — in recent times, depleting their life savings to pay for a good education — and then would end their lives in their children’s care. No Social Security system was needed. Nursing homes were rare.
But as South Korea’s hard-charging younger generations joined an exodus from farms to cities in recent decades, or simply found themselves working harder in the hypercompetitive environment that helped drive the nation’s economic miracle, their parents were often left behind. Many elderly people now live out their final years poor, in rural areas with the melancholy feel of ghost towns.
The entire story is here.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Michael Shermer on morality
by Massimo Pigliucci
edge.org
Originally published on January 21, 2013
Oh my, I thought I was done for a while chastising skeptics like Sam Harris on the relationship between philosophy, science and morality, and I just found out that my friend Michael Shermer has incurred a similar (though not quite as egregious as Harris’) bit of questionable thinking. As I explained in my review of Harris’ book for Skeptic, one learns precisely nothing about morality by reading The Moral Landscape. Indeed, one’s time on that topic is much better spent by leafing through Michael Sandel’s On Justice, for example. Anyway, apologies for the repetition, but here we go again. (For a fuller explanation of how I think moral philosophy works, see here; on science and philosophy here and here. For how the whole philosophy-science-morality shebang hangs in, take a look at chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Answers for Aristotle.)
Michael begins his piece by complaining that scientists have “conceded the high ground of determining human values, morals, and ethics to philosophers,” and arguing that this was a mistake. Indeed, Shermer says that such concession (when did it happen, by the way? Did the National Academy of Science pass a resolution under pressure from the American Philosophical Association?) comes at the worst time because new scientific tools and discoveries are gonna finally tell us from where we ought to get our values.
What are these tools? They include evolutionary ethics and neuroethics, among other fields. Now imagine that Michael had been talking about math instead of ethics. The idea would run something like this: “Scientists have conceded the high ground of resolving mathematical problems to mathematicians, just when the new disciplines of evolutionary mathematics and neuro-mathematics are coming on line.” My point is, I hasten to say, not that ethics is like math, but rather that evolutionary math and neuro-math would be giving us answers to different questions. An evolutionary approach to understanding our ability to reason mathematically could give us clues as to why we are capable of abstract thinking to begin with, which is interesting. “Neuro-mathematics” could then provide answers to the question of how the brain works when it engages in mathematical (and other types of abstract) thinking. But if you want to know how to prove Pythagoras' theorem, neither evolutionary biologists nor neurobiologists are the right kind of experts. You need a mathematician.
The entire blog post is here.
edge.org
Originally published on January 21, 2013
Oh my, I thought I was done for a while chastising skeptics like Sam Harris on the relationship between philosophy, science and morality, and I just found out that my friend Michael Shermer has incurred a similar (though not quite as egregious as Harris’) bit of questionable thinking. As I explained in my review of Harris’ book for Skeptic, one learns precisely nothing about morality by reading The Moral Landscape. Indeed, one’s time on that topic is much better spent by leafing through Michael Sandel’s On Justice, for example. Anyway, apologies for the repetition, but here we go again. (For a fuller explanation of how I think moral philosophy works, see here; on science and philosophy here and here. For how the whole philosophy-science-morality shebang hangs in, take a look at chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Answers for Aristotle.)
Michael begins his piece by complaining that scientists have “conceded the high ground of determining human values, morals, and ethics to philosophers,” and arguing that this was a mistake. Indeed, Shermer says that such concession (when did it happen, by the way? Did the National Academy of Science pass a resolution under pressure from the American Philosophical Association?) comes at the worst time because new scientific tools and discoveries are gonna finally tell us from where we ought to get our values.
What are these tools? They include evolutionary ethics and neuroethics, among other fields. Now imagine that Michael had been talking about math instead of ethics. The idea would run something like this: “Scientists have conceded the high ground of resolving mathematical problems to mathematicians, just when the new disciplines of evolutionary mathematics and neuro-mathematics are coming on line.” My point is, I hasten to say, not that ethics is like math, but rather that evolutionary math and neuro-math would be giving us answers to different questions. An evolutionary approach to understanding our ability to reason mathematically could give us clues as to why we are capable of abstract thinking to begin with, which is interesting. “Neuro-mathematics” could then provide answers to the question of how the brain works when it engages in mathematical (and other types of abstract) thinking. But if you want to know how to prove Pythagoras' theorem, neither evolutionary biologists nor neurobiologists are the right kind of experts. You need a mathematician.
The entire blog post is here.
The Is-Ought Fallacy Of Science And Morality
By Michael Shermer
Publisher, Skeptic magazine; monthly columnist, Scientific American
edge.org
Originally published February 18, 2013
Ever since the philosophers David Hume and G. E. Moore identified the "Is-Ought problem" between descriptive statements (the way something "is") and prescriptive statements (the way something "ought to be"), most scientists have conceded the high ground of determining human values, morals, and ethics to philosophers, agreeing that science can only describe the way things are but never tell us how they ought to be. This is a mistake.
We should be worried that scientists have given up the search for determining right and wrong and which values lead to human flourishing just as the research tools for doing so are coming online through such fields as evolutionary ethics, experimental ethics, neuroethics, and related fields. The Is-Ought problem (sometimes rendered as the "naturalistic fallacy") is itself a fallacy. Morals and values must be based on the way things are in order to establish the best conditions for human flourishing. Before we abandon the ship just as it leaves port, let's give science a chance to steer a course toward a destination where scientists at least have a voice in the conversation on how best we should live.
The entire story is here.
Publisher, Skeptic magazine; monthly columnist, Scientific American
edge.org
Originally published February 18, 2013
Ever since the philosophers David Hume and G. E. Moore identified the "Is-Ought problem" between descriptive statements (the way something "is") and prescriptive statements (the way something "ought to be"), most scientists have conceded the high ground of determining human values, morals, and ethics to philosophers, agreeing that science can only describe the way things are but never tell us how they ought to be. This is a mistake.
We should be worried that scientists have given up the search for determining right and wrong and which values lead to human flourishing just as the research tools for doing so are coming online through such fields as evolutionary ethics, experimental ethics, neuroethics, and related fields. The Is-Ought problem (sometimes rendered as the "naturalistic fallacy") is itself a fallacy. Morals and values must be based on the way things are in order to establish the best conditions for human flourishing. Before we abandon the ship just as it leaves port, let's give science a chance to steer a course toward a destination where scientists at least have a voice in the conversation on how best we should live.
The entire story is here.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Federal Government To Run Insurance Marketplaces In Half The States
By Phil Galewitz and Alvin Tran
Kaiser Health News
Originally published February 15, 2013
It's official. The Obama administration will be running new health insurance marketplaces in 26 states— including the major population centers of Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania.
The federal government had hoped more states this week would agree to form a partnership exchange—the deadline to apply was Friday—but the offer was largely rebuffed. New Jersey, Ohio and Florida, several of the biggest states that had not declared their intentions, officially said no late in the week.
"I have determined that federal operation of the Exchange is the responsible choice for our state," New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, wrote in letter Friday to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
For consumers, it should make little difference whether the new Internet sites are run from state capitals or Washington, D.C. But federal regulators hoped states would shoulder some of the work and stakeholder groups such as hospitals and insurers wanted states to help as well. The exchanges will open for business Oct. 1.
The entire story is here.
Editorial Note: Since Kaiser Health News reported this information, Florida Gov. Rick Scott now accepted the federal government's assistance to set up the health exchange for Florida.
Kaiser Health News
Originally published February 15, 2013
It's official. The Obama administration will be running new health insurance marketplaces in 26 states— including the major population centers of Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania.
The federal government had hoped more states this week would agree to form a partnership exchange—the deadline to apply was Friday—but the offer was largely rebuffed. New Jersey, Ohio and Florida, several of the biggest states that had not declared their intentions, officially said no late in the week.
"I have determined that federal operation of the Exchange is the responsible choice for our state," New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, wrote in letter Friday to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
For consumers, it should make little difference whether the new Internet sites are run from state capitals or Washington, D.C. But federal regulators hoped states would shoulder some of the work and stakeholder groups such as hospitals and insurers wanted states to help as well. The exchanges will open for business Oct. 1.
The entire story is here.
Editorial Note: Since Kaiser Health News reported this information, Florida Gov. Rick Scott now accepted the federal government's assistance to set up the health exchange for Florida.
Changes to mentally ill law could mean fewer opt for treatment: B.C. review board
Allan Schoenborn, the B.C. father found not criminally responsible for killing his three children, has been the poster boy for federal reforms
By Dene Moore
The Canadian Press
February 14, 2013
It was a horrific crime, so grotesque that Allan Schoenborn, the B.C. father found not criminally responsible for killing his three children, became the poster boy for reforming the federal law to keep mentally ill offenders in detention for longer periods of time.
But Schoenborn is still entitled to an annual hearing before the B.C. Review Board, a hearing scheduled to take place Friday at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital he now calls home.
And some wonder if the amendments announced last week won’t actually have the opposite of the desired effect, by discouraging plea bargains that see mentally ill offenders opt for treatment.
“You’re going to have a lot more mentally disordered people who have gone to jail for a period of time, have been untreated, and are back on the street untreated. So in that sense it doesn’t really make people much safer,” said Bernd Walter, chairman of the B.C. Review Board.
Policy decisions are the purview of the federal government but the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act is “quite unclear in terms of how it will work,” said Walter, who is also the chairman of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
Walter said many of the approximately 260 cases under the jurisdiction of the board were resolved by agreement between the defence and the Crown that the offender is so mentally ill that they did not understand their actions to be criminal.
The entire article is here.
By Dene Moore
The Canadian Press
February 14, 2013
It was a horrific crime, so grotesque that Allan Schoenborn, the B.C. father found not criminally responsible for killing his three children, became the poster boy for reforming the federal law to keep mentally ill offenders in detention for longer periods of time.
But Schoenborn is still entitled to an annual hearing before the B.C. Review Board, a hearing scheduled to take place Friday at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital he now calls home.
And some wonder if the amendments announced last week won’t actually have the opposite of the desired effect, by discouraging plea bargains that see mentally ill offenders opt for treatment.
“You’re going to have a lot more mentally disordered people who have gone to jail for a period of time, have been untreated, and are back on the street untreated. So in that sense it doesn’t really make people much safer,” said Bernd Walter, chairman of the B.C. Review Board.
Policy decisions are the purview of the federal government but the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act is “quite unclear in terms of how it will work,” said Walter, who is also the chairman of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
Walter said many of the approximately 260 cases under the jurisdiction of the board were resolved by agreement between the defence and the Crown that the offender is so mentally ill that they did not understand their actions to be criminal.
The entire article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)