Faculty Bibliography

In 2006, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws rewrote the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. To overcome the problem of family members prohibiting organ donation from their deceased loved ones even when a donor card existed, the commissioners modified the act to prevent end-of-life care from precluding organ donation. An unintended consequence of the new wording creates the potential for end-of-life care that prioritizes care of the potential donor organs over care and comfort of the dying person. The commissioners have now revised the act, but the original version has already been legislated in many states, with others poised to follow. To protect dying patients' wishes about their end-of-life care, states that have legislated or are considering the original act must replace it with the revised version. A long-term and important ethical precept must stand: Care of dying patients takes precedence over organs. Another laudable goal must be promoted as well: Organ donation is an important part of end-of-life care.

The latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines recommend routine HIV screening for a large segment of the population, given that the individual understands that an HIV test will be performed unless he or she declines testing (opt-out testing). The CDC recommendation calls for the elimination of formalized requirements for written consent and pretest counseling to encourage more Americans to voluntarily accept testing. Knowledge of HIV infection can increase early access to care and treatment and reduce further transmission. A rapid non-invasive test for HIV infection (OraQuick Advance) from oral fluid has recently become available. It offers two distinct advantages: 1) results are available within twenty minutes, thereby eliminating a long waiting period; and 2) it has high sensitivity and specificity comparable to blood testing. A preliminary positive test result must be confirmed with a Western Blot by an outside laboratory or physician. Important ethical and legal issues must be resolved before the successful implementation of HIV testing in the dental setting. An educational emphasis on broader coverage of HIV testing is also needed within the dental school curriculum. The integration of HIV testing into dental practice is discussed as well. A policy of screening patients in dental offices will contribute to a major advance in public health

The licensure in 2006 of a vaccine against the subtypes of human papillomavirus (HPV) responsible for the majority of cervical cancers and genital warts was heralded as a watershed moment for vaccination, cancer prevention, and global health. A safe and effective vaccine against HPV has long been viewed as an enormous asset to cervical cancer prevention efforts worldwide. This is particularly true for places lacking robust Pap screening programs where cervical cancer has the greatest prevalence and mortality. Well before its licensure, however, some observers noted significant obstacles that would need to be addressed in order for an HPV vaccination program to succeed. These included the vaccine's relatively high cost, availability, and opposition from socially conservative groups. Such concerns associated with the implementation of HPV vaccination were soon overwhelmed by the furor that followed the unexpectedly early efforts by the US state governments to require the vaccine as a condition of attendance in public schools, proposals imprecisely referred to as "mandates." In this study, we review the controversy surrounding this debate and its effects on important ethical and public health issues that still need to be addressed.

This article examines the actions and testimonies of 14 nurses who killed psychiatric patients at the state hospital of Meseritz-Obrawalde in the Nazi 'euthanasia' program. The nurses provided various reasons for their decisions to participate in the killings. An ethical analysis of the testimonies demonstrates that a belief in the relief of suffering, the notion that the patients would 'benefit' from death, their selection by physicians for the 'treatment' of 'euthanasia', and a perceived duty to obey unquestioningly the orders of physicians were the primary ethical reasons that were stated for their behavior. However, 20 years had elapsed between the killings and the trial, thus giving ample opportunity for the defendants to develop comfortable rationales for their actions and for their attorneys to have observed successful defenses of others accused of euthanasia.

ARTHUR L