Dresser is an expert in biomedical ethics. She holds a joint appointment with Washington University School of Medicine, teaching law and medical students about legal and ethical issues in end-of-life care, biomedical research, genetics, assisted reproduction and related topics.
As Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia continue to become more prevalent, it may not be long before there is a push for legalizing physician-assisted death in dementia cases in the United States. American officials must thoroughly consider the moral and social consequences of such an action, says an expert on medical ethics at Washington University in St. Louis.
In 2014, so called “Right to Try” laws, which gave terminally ill patients access to investigational medications, were enacted in five states. More state legislatures are now considering such laws. While time will tell whether these investigational drugs have any significant impact on quality of life or longevity, the legislative debate over such laws must be more informed than it has been, argues Rebecca Dresser, JD, expert in biomedical ethics and law at Washington University in St. Louis.
Fourteen people have been arrested in connection with a
2012 outbreak of fungal meningitis linked to steroid injections that
caused 64 deaths across the United States. The arrests, which resulted in two people being charged
with 25 acts of second-degree murder, remind us that drug manufacturers
must be responsible for their actions, says a noted medical ethics
expert at Washington University in St. Louis.
Recent revelations that NBC News’
chief medical correspondent violated an Ebola quarantine after
returning from Africa, and that a Dallas health care worker infected
with the virus boarded a commercial jet have focused the nation’s
attention on Ebola and what can be done to protect citizens. While measures like quarantine do restrict the freedom
of exposed individuals, they do so to protect the public’s health, says a
Washington University in St. Louis expert on biomedical ethics.
The way that most scientific reports are presented seems to suggest that clinical trials have controlled for flaws or deviations, but some test subjects secretly break study rules that conflict with their own personal interests. These “subversive subjects” undermine the research endeavor.