Telehealth is the use of information and communications technology by healthcare professionals to provide care to patients. When this technology is being used specifically for genetic services, it is called telegenetics. Previous studies that examine the small-scale use of telegenetics for the field of genetic counseling have shown that the technology may provide a way to address the problem of patient access to genetic counseling services, assuming its efficacy. Patients are satisfied with telegenetics, but genetic counselors hold more reservations. Because of this and the many regulatory barriers in its way, telegenetics was only slowly being adopted when the coronavirus was declared a pandemic in March 2020. The pandemic forced a switch to telegenetics at a scale never seen before. This study begins with a literature review to assess the situation of telegenetics before and during the pandemic. It then surveys practicing genetic counselors in Arizona in order to reveal what they think about telegenetics when it is the encouraged, and sometimes only, modality. Since the literature review revealed that genetic counselors, not patients, are the ones with concerns, it is important to hear their points of view. This study reveals that genetic counselors want telegenetics as an option but not as a replacement for in-person appointments. All respondents agreed that increased patient access is the main benefit of telegenetics. There are reported challenges that must be overcome, but genetic counselors in Arizona overwhelming believe that telegenetics use will be continued in the future.
Within the last decade, there has been a lot of hype surrounding the potential medical applications of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies. During the same timespan, big tech companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Google have entered the healthcare market as developers of health-based AI and ML technologies. This project aims to create a comprehensive map of the existing health-AI market landscape for the standard biotech reader and to provide a critical commentary on the existing market structure.
In 2015, the FDA began a process to reevaluate and update the regulations surrounding homeopathic products to better fit their present risk-based model. Past regulations were set in 1938; and as the world evolved, these have been found to set inadequate standards. By reviewing the agency’s guidance drafts and core regulatory documents, we come to understand that these changes are motivated by a desire for homeopathic remedies to follow high standards that apply to other products for the benefit of the U.S. consumers. FDA has made significant advances by proposing new Guidances on homeopathic products, listening to homeopathic community and consumers, and withdrawing the Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 issued in 1988.
We recommend for homeopathic manufacturers and practitioners to see the FDA as an ally and cooperate fully with the proposed changes for the regulation the agency gives out. Doing so will give the homeopathic community the best chance at continuing to sell their products and reach their consumers in the United States. In the same token, the FDA should do their best to involve homeopathic professionals in some way in this regulatory process, to encourage participation and compliance by the broader homeopathic community. Doing so ensures a climate of teamwork among different facets of the medical community in the United States.
While these moments are only a subset of such moments in US history, and Congress is only one of a range of forums in which such political discussions can take place, the thesis focuses on these cases because not only are they important in themselves, but also they reveal issues and approaches that are not unique to these moments. The thesis draws on the on the work of Neil Postman, who argues that the emergence and subsequent dominance of media like television have the capacity to alter the manner in which we think and thus have profound effects on the texture and character of American civic life. In this vein it uses a comparison of how lawmakers attempted to regulate television and social media platforms like Facebook to explore whether and how lawmakers have attended to the capacity of these media to shape public thought.
The thesis demonstrates that understanding of media’s epistemological influence is only ever tacitly acknowledged by lawmakers and is not regarded as an important consideration during evaluative legislative efforts. Instead, Congress tends to focus on matters that are of immediate concern and pragmatic in nature, eclipsing questions about how these technologies fundamentally alter our perceptions of the world and the ways we as individuals and as a society relate to it. By not taking such questions into account during our legislative proceedings, the thesis argues, we cede opportunities to employ and regulate technologies to better serve our cultural ideals and remain susceptible to unwanted forms of cultural erosion mediated by technologies.