Med students cite lack of training in medical ethics
Survey highlights shortcomings in key areas
More than one-third of American medical students are not required to study medical ethics, according to survey results compiled by the American Medical Student Association (AMSA).
Medical students told the association they are receiving traditional education but are not required to study medical ethics.
"Medical education should provide students with the information and skills they need to enter medicine as physicians worthy of the public trust," says Leana S. Wen, AMSA national president. "It is a constant challenge for medical schools to teach the traditional medical curriculum while also incorporating new, timely topics. However, it is absolutely necessary that medical schools recognize this challenge and strive to develop physicians who can effectively provide care in this modern health care environment."
"To ensure that future physicians are properly prepared and curricula are all-encompassing, students and educators must collaborate and continue to refine medical education," Wen says. "AMSA continues to work with educators to develop the best curriculum possible that not only reflects the clinical skills future doctors need but also the other aspects of being a socially responsible physician in our modern and diverse society."
The survey was conducted as a general assessment of medical students’ attitudes toward medical school curricula. AMSA designed the on-line survey and solicited member response to it; 322 students responded.
For more information, visit AMSA’s web site at www.amsa.org.
Genetic Privacy Act gains energy; Gingrich weighs in
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich threw his weight behind a bill that would preclude genetic-based discrimination, a measure that its backers have called integral to the future of personalized medicine.
During a gathering in September on Capitol Hill, the one-time congressional leader, who these days frequently comments on health care matters in his capacity as the founder of the Center for Health Transformation in Washington, agreed with other speakers in noting that "people have every reason to be worried about genetic discrimination." His address was made to several current House members, including co-sponsors of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, as well as representatives from the Personalized Medicine Coalition and others in related spaces.
A version of the bill to prevent genetic-based insurance or employment prejudice cleared the Senate, 98-0, early this year, and a movement is afoot to bring it to a vote in the House of Representatives before this congressional session ends.
Presently, most states have some law against genetic-based discrimination for health insurance, and 33 have measures in place to prevent workplace discrimination, but previous work to enact federal regulations on both fronts has stalled.
But according to a recent poll conducted by Christy White of Cogent Research, almost three-quarters of those asked said the government should protect the privacy of genetic information. Also according to the poll, Americans are extraordinarily in favor of using genomics to improve health care, with large majorities saying that they would like to see pharmacogenomic data used to improve drug safety and efficacy. But they also fear the manipulation of their genetic information without federal regulations in place.
Among the poll’s negative findings, 68% said they are concerned about the storage of personal information and access to it, and almost a third said their concern would prevent them from having a genetic test. Further, 69% felt that insurance companies would deny coverage if a genetic profile indicated a low chance of response.
Brian Munroe, president and founder of the Personalized Medicine Coalition in Washington, who works as the vice president of government relations and public policy at Cambridge, Mass.-based Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., also noted recruitment slowdowns in clinical studies that employ genetic testing because participants fear signing informed consent documents.
The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, H.R. 1227, was authored by a bipartisan syndicate that includes Reps. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), Bob Ney (R-Ohio) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.). It has nearly 130 co-sponsors and is identical to S. 306, which passed unanimously in the Senate in February.
More than one-third of American medical students are not required to study medical ethics, according to survey results compiled by the American Medical Student Association (AMSA).You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content