I thought that this recent development would be particularly pertinent to our topic this week: Communication and Public Health.
I also found it interesting that this information was released to the public, prior to the letters indicating that patients should be tested were sent out to the possibly 40,000 infected individuals. It is a prime example of risk communication: before the details of the potential infection via syringes was known, information was made public, and the public’s perception of the risk of contracting Hepatitis C or even HIV from a hospital will most likely be influenced.
4 comments:
I found it interesting that they released the information to the public first because I assumed that some sort of law would not allow this. I would think that the patients and their families would have the right to find out first. Also it is unclear if any of these people are actually infected so it might change a lot of the story once they learn if and how many people are actually infected. The end of the article states that to continue practicing the clinic faces more inspections fines. Adding this at the end of the article might be an effort to make people feel like going to the doctor is less risky, and something is being done to control it. It is interesting that they talk about the continuation of practicing, I would think that with that type of stigma attached to a practice many people would not feel safe going back even though they are going to be under constant monitoring.
I agree with Culver's comment about the stigma attached to such a practice. From an ethical standpoint, I assume the article was made public knowledge for the greater public awareness and potential public health risk than isolating the facts of the incident. Moreover, I feel that patient confidentiality is protected since no names were released. The article attempts to curb the shock of such news and reassure audiences by mentioning heightened inspections; however, I feel the public is also aware that tightened restrictions only come in retrospect to some catastrophic event. This issue reminded me of the constant recalls in the news, yet is far more serious and people’s livelihoods are in question. This was a very thought provoking article relative to clinical practices.
I agree with both comments made. When reading about this in the news, my first gut reaction was "I wonder how much I can trust my doctors' offices." This initial thought of fear is what provokes many people to get into a state of panic and what a lot of news stations, therefore, consider newsworthy, because it grabs people's attention and forces them to watch. As we discussed in class, the news reports what it deems important and also what will help its ratings/reader numbers go up. With this in mind, it is important to note the fear this information gives but instead of entering that state of panic, it's also necessary to evaluate the content and really ask yourself if the story is true or blown out of proportion by the media, making something big from something that may not have been so.
I had a similar gut response to Culver's in regards to the legality of publishing the information about the potential exposure before notifying all potential victims. I instinctively thought that there should be some kind of law regulating who gets priority to information. After speaking about this issue with a law professor, however, it became clear that the rights of the press in the United States are rarely trumped by matters of individual privacy when a story is considered to be "newsworthy," or relevant to the general public. In this case, CNN would not be liable for publishing this story because the public's "right to know" if they are at risk outweighs the right of those directly involved to find out this information before the public at large. While I agree with previous posts that CNN is certainly looking for ratings (just like every other news organization) with this story, they are nevertheless acting completely within their constitutional rights by publishing it.
Post a Comment