Matching Items (6)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: healthcare
- All Subjects: Vaccines
- Creators: Hurlbut, Ben
- Member of: Theses and Dissertations
Description
With advances in biotechnology, personalized medicine has become an ever-expanding field. Even with so much growth, the critics equally match the proponents of personalized medicine. The source of their disagreement is rooted in the concept of empowerment. This analysis utilizes the personal genomics company 23andMe and their relationship with the Federal Food and Drug Administration to illustrate varying views of empowerment. Specifically, the case study focuses on the ability to provide direct-to-consumer health reports to patients independent of physicians. In doing this, larger issues of what is at stake in personalized medicine are uncovered. These include but are not limited to: who determines what individuals get empowered and what information is determined good versus bad.
ContributorsSilverman, Adam Mattern (Author) / Brian, Jennifer (Thesis director) / Hurlbut, Ben (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
Vaccine opposition is a growing problem in developed countries where dropping vaccination rates threaten general public health by laying the foundation for resurgence and reemergence of previously eradicated infectious diseases. This thesis argues that the current movement is only the most recent incarnation of opposition that has co-evolved with vaccine practices for the duration of their mutual histories. Part one provides a historical context for the current movement using the example of the development and deployment of the smallpox vaccine as a representative timeline of vaccine acceptance and opposition. Part two describes the current movement in the United States and the United Kingdom, interprets the reasons for the conclusions drawn by vaccine-concerned parents, and provides a framework for public health officials to approach the issues.
ContributorsKost, Stephanie Michelle (Author) / Lynch, John (Thesis director) / Hurlbut, Ben (Committee member) / Robert, Jason (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor)
Created2013-12
Description
The Flying Samaritans is a group of volunteers who provide health care on a monthly basis at the Laguna de San Ignacio Clinic in Baja California Sur, Mexico. The purpose of this study was to gather demographic information about the patients at the clinic as well as to determine why the patients need to use a free clinic, how they use other health care facilities that are available to them, how well they take care of themselves in terms of exercise, nutrition, and care of chronic disease, and how the Flying Samaritans can improve their care for this population. This information was gathered using an extensive patient survey as well as through interviews with both patients and health care providers at this clinic. Based on the data gathered, it was determined that some health problems present in the population could be prevented with education about daily health and dental care. The Flying Samaritans could implement some forms of patient education in order to minimize chronic health problems and to continue to improve the overall health of this population. The data also demonstrated that the patients rely heavily on the Flying Samaritans services, as the town in very isolated and does not offer any other medical or dental facilities. The Flying Samaritans are essential to the well-being of this town and provide services that the patients may not otherwise receive.
ContributorsLiberty-Bibbens, McKenzie Bryn (Author) / Hurlbut, Ben (Thesis director) / Schroeder, Stefanie (Committee member) / Maupin, Jonathan (Committee member) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
Vaccinations are important for preventing influenza infection. Maximizing vaccination uptake rates (80-90%) is crucial in generating herd immunity and preventing infection incidence. Vaccination of healthcare professionals (HCP) against influenza is vital to infection control in healthcare settings, given their consistent exposure to high-risk patients like: those with compromised immune systems, children, and the elderly (Johnson & Talbot, 2011). Though vaccination is vital in disease prevention, influenza vaccination uptake among HCP is low overall (50% on average) (Pearson et al., 2006). Mandatory vaccination policies result in HCP influenza vaccination uptake rates substantially higher than opt-in influenza vaccination campaigns (90% vs. 60%). Therefore, influenza vaccination should be mandatory for HCP in order to best prevent influenza infection in healthcare settings. Many HCP cite individual objections to influenza vaccination rooted in personal doubts and ethical concerns, not best available scientific evidence. Nevertheless, HCP ethical responsibility to their patients and work environments to prevent and lower influenza infection incidence overrules such individual objections. Additionally, mandatory HCP influenza vaccination policies respect HCP autonomy via including medical and religious exemption clauses. While vaccination as a prevention method for influenza is logically sound, individuals’ actions are not always rooted in logic. Therefore, I analyze HCP perceptions and actions toward influenza vaccination in an effort to better explain low HCP uptake rates of the influenza vaccine and individual objections to influenza vaccination. Such analysis can aid in gaining HCP trust when implementing mandatory HCP influenza vaccination policies. In summary, mandatory HCP influenza vaccination policies are ethically justified, effective, scientifically-supported method of maximizing HCP influenza vaccine uptake and minimizing the spread of the influenza virus within healthcare settlings.
ContributorsGur-Arie, Rachel (Author) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis advisor) / Hurlbut, Ben (Thesis advisor) / Ellison, Karin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
In 1996, President Clinton ordered the formation of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), which undertook to evaluate the morality of a myriad of secret and publicized radiation experiments ranging from 1944 to 1974. The goal of this thesis is to analyze the ways in which that committee formed moral evaluations and the extent to which its strategies related to a broader historical and philosophical discourse. Here I attempt to describe two specific techniques of simplification the committee deploys in order to make a retrospective moral analysis possible. Although the techniques comprise specific problems, frameworks, subjective perspectives, and conceptual links, their unifying principle is the field of choices the techniques produce. In the first technique I outline, I argue that by focusing on the problem of historical relativism, the committee gains a platform through which it would be granted flexibility in making a distinction between moral wrongdoing and blameworthiness. In the second technique of simplification I outline, I argue that the committee's incorporation of a principle to reduce uncertainty as an ethical aim allow it to establish new ways to reconcile scientific aims with moral responsibility. In addition to describing the structure of these techniques, I also demonstrate how they relate to the specific experiments the analysts aim to evaluate, using both the ACHRE experiments as well as the Nuremberg Trial experiments as my examples. My hope is not to show why a given committee made a particular moral evaluation, or to say whether a decision was right or wrong, but rather to illustrate how certain techniques open up a field of choices that allow moral analysts to form retrospective moral judgments.
ContributorsCirjan, Cristian (Author) / Hurlbut, Ben (Thesis director) / Humphrey, Ted (Committee member) / Zachary, Gregg (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
The study investigated unconscious biases in physicians regarding conflicts in developing care plans for patients related to religious restrictions in medicine. Fourteen physicians were interviewed to discuss their experiences with these patients and find patterns and factors that could lead to more negative attitudes from the physicians in the patient’s care. It was found that the gender, religious background, and location of residency had various impacts on the attitude of the physician regarding a religious concern; however, there was no outstanding demographic that led to a comparatively negative attitude. Additionally, the type of reasoning a patient used related to a religious concern had an impact on the attitude of the physician, and this was due to the logic and duration of the concern as well as the attitude of the patient. These factors and patient cases were thoroughly analyzed and discussed throughout the paper to shed light on possible factors that could negatively affect the patient’s care.
ContributorsKalmadi, Nisha (Author) / Hurlbut, Ben (Thesis director) / Dietz, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Life Sciences (Contributor) / College of Health Solutions (Contributor)
Created2023-05