Arthur L. Caplan, PhD

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I recently saw a ban that has me very worried, concerned, and strongly in opposition. Nassau County, which is about 60 miles east of New York City, out on Long Island, instituted a ban on people wearing masks.

Basically, the standard kind of medical mask would be captured, although I think their aim in doing this was to try to discourage people at political protests from being able to wear masks and hide their identity. They’re basically trying to discourage that. This is particularly triggered by, I think, protests about the invasion of Israel, the war that resulted in Gaza, and the demonstrations that have gone on around the country, with many people masked.

There may be issues about what is acceptable to wear when you go to a demonstration. I don’t claim to know about the civil rights of that. 

In a time at which COVID-19 is flourishing, really on the rebound, expanding fast, and still causing 600 deaths a week; the flu season is going to be upon us soon enough; and there are also concerns about the possibility of avian flu jumping into the human population, it is absolutely the wrong time to single out those who are trying to mask for health reasons. 

Basically, there are two strong reasons. One, there are people out there who wear a medical mask or mask for a medical reason because they have an underlying disease. They may have had a transplant or they may feel they’re immunocompromised for some reason. They worry that, if they don’t wear a mask, they’re going to get an infection from something like COVID-19 or flu, which could really be super-dangerous for them. 

The other reason people mask is to protect their family members. They may have someone who’s immunocompromised in the family, or they’re doing it kindly and altruistically to protect the rest of us and to stop viruses from circulating.

These bans are not taking into account public health. They’re being brought forward in the midst of political heat about demonstrations and political issues. I think they should be opposed. I do not think they should be enacted. 

I think the medical rights of people with disabilities and immunologic disorders, and those who want to mask to prevent getting sick at a time at which infectious diseases are still circulating and killing people, ought to take priority. Public health, in this case, should drive our policies about masks. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, served on Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I recently saw a ban that has me very worried, concerned, and strongly in opposition. Nassau County, which is about 60 miles east of New York City, out on Long Island, instituted a ban on people wearing masks.

Basically, the standard kind of medical mask would be captured, although I think their aim in doing this was to try to discourage people at political protests from being able to wear masks and hide their identity. They’re basically trying to discourage that. This is particularly triggered by, I think, protests about the invasion of Israel, the war that resulted in Gaza, and the demonstrations that have gone on around the country, with many people masked.

There may be issues about what is acceptable to wear when you go to a demonstration. I don’t claim to know about the civil rights of that. 

In a time at which COVID-19 is flourishing, really on the rebound, expanding fast, and still causing 600 deaths a week; the flu season is going to be upon us soon enough; and there are also concerns about the possibility of avian flu jumping into the human population, it is absolutely the wrong time to single out those who are trying to mask for health reasons. 

Basically, there are two strong reasons. One, there are people out there who wear a medical mask or mask for a medical reason because they have an underlying disease. They may have had a transplant or they may feel they’re immunocompromised for some reason. They worry that, if they don’t wear a mask, they’re going to get an infection from something like COVID-19 or flu, which could really be super-dangerous for them. 

The other reason people mask is to protect their family members. They may have someone who’s immunocompromised in the family, or they’re doing it kindly and altruistically to protect the rest of us and to stop viruses from circulating.

These bans are not taking into account public health. They’re being brought forward in the midst of political heat about demonstrations and political issues. I think they should be opposed. I do not think they should be enacted. 

I think the medical rights of people with disabilities and immunologic disorders, and those who want to mask to prevent getting sick at a time at which infectious diseases are still circulating and killing people, ought to take priority. Public health, in this case, should drive our policies about masks. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, served on Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I recently saw a ban that has me very worried, concerned, and strongly in opposition. Nassau County, which is about 60 miles east of New York City, out on Long Island, instituted a ban on people wearing masks.

Basically, the standard kind of medical mask would be captured, although I think their aim in doing this was to try to discourage people at political protests from being able to wear masks and hide their identity. They’re basically trying to discourage that. This is particularly triggered by, I think, protests about the invasion of Israel, the war that resulted in Gaza, and the demonstrations that have gone on around the country, with many people masked.

There may be issues about what is acceptable to wear when you go to a demonstration. I don’t claim to know about the civil rights of that. 

In a time at which COVID-19 is flourishing, really on the rebound, expanding fast, and still causing 600 deaths a week; the flu season is going to be upon us soon enough; and there are also concerns about the possibility of avian flu jumping into the human population, it is absolutely the wrong time to single out those who are trying to mask for health reasons. 

Basically, there are two strong reasons. One, there are people out there who wear a medical mask or mask for a medical reason because they have an underlying disease. They may have had a transplant or they may feel they’re immunocompromised for some reason. They worry that, if they don’t wear a mask, they’re going to get an infection from something like COVID-19 or flu, which could really be super-dangerous for them. 

The other reason people mask is to protect their family members. They may have someone who’s immunocompromised in the family, or they’re doing it kindly and altruistically to protect the rest of us and to stop viruses from circulating.

These bans are not taking into account public health. They’re being brought forward in the midst of political heat about demonstrations and political issues. I think they should be opposed. I do not think they should be enacted. 

I think the medical rights of people with disabilities and immunologic disorders, and those who want to mask to prevent getting sick at a time at which infectious diseases are still circulating and killing people, ought to take priority. Public health, in this case, should drive our policies about masks. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, served on Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There’s a very interesting story in the medical press. A few years ago, a plastic surgeon named Edmond Cabbabe was preparing to do a follow-up cosmetic procedure on his wife at Mercy Hospital South, which is a big hospital in the St. Louis, Missouri, area.

He put her on the operating schedule, and he had done that when he had performed the original operation on her. On the day of the surgery, he got a call from the hospital saying the procedure was canceled. They said that the hospital’s policy, maybe a new one, would not allow doctors to operate on family members.

This physician was a past president of the Missouri State Medical Association. I think he was also on the board or president of the American Medical Association (AMA) Foundation. This was a physician not only in a skilled area where he felt confident he could take care of his wife, but also someone who was prominent in medical politics and medical policy.

The AMA forever has had a policy that says don’t treat relatives. This physician basically said, I think that policy is too restrictive, too cautious, and it doesn’t make much sense to continue to say that you can’t treat family and friends.

By implication, he was saying, I know exactly what I’m doing in my field and I know exactly what I’m doing with her procedure. I should have a right to perform it. I think I do a great job and I’d be best for her.

If you look at medical boards, every once in a while in some state, someone is brought up on a charge of doing different things with family members and saying that they’re going to get censured. They don’t usually lose their license, but they get a reprimand or get told that is just not ethical to do.

I think, in the long run, the policy about not treating your family and friends makes sense. The problem is, as is well known from the social sciences and psychology, people get biased when they deal with those they care about, love, and hold close to them.

It’s hard for the doctor to be objective when dealing with people that they really like or love. It’s also difficult for patients because they may not want to bring up something or they are uncomfortable talking with a doctor who’s a family member or close friend. They may not want to complain. They may be a little bit embarrassed about things. It just adds an emotional edge, I think, that’s difficult.

All that said, do I know doctors who regularly prescribe, say, an ointment for something that’s itchy or some kind of a pill when allergy season breaks out? I do. Do I think they’re acting in a horribly unethical manner? I don’t.

You need some judgment here. There are absolutely minor things where objectivity, fear, and anxiety are not in play. You’re going to be able to prescribe the routine thing for the routine itch without worrying too much about whether it’s a stranger, a friend, or your daughter.

What sorts of things am I really talking about when I say that minor variability ought to be allowed? It’s one thing when someone has poison ivy and they’re going to need some kind of standard medicine to treat it. A very different area that’s much more dangerous, and one I would avoid, is in the mental health field, and for that matter, the pain field.

It’s tempting to say: “Oh, my relative is just having a bad time. I’ll give her a little bit of antidepressant medicine,” or “They seem to be having pain after an operation or something, and I’m going to give them a little bit of pain meds just to get them through.”

Those areas are flying red flags. It’s easy to abuse and easy for someone to become a user and manipulate a friend or a doctor who’s a relative into getting things that another doctor wouldn’t be giving. I think that’s the space where you’ve got to exercise extreme caution.

Time and again, when those people get called up in front of the boards for treating relatives, it’s in those spaces of mental health, anxiety, and pain control. Again, when you know that there’s a likelihood of abuse, I think that’s the place where the line has to hold. Don’t treat the relative. Don’t treat the friend.

At the end of the day, I wouldn’t change the AMA policy. I think we should keep it in place and morally try to discourage doctors from caring for those they’re close to or they have emotional ties to.

At the same time, as with all ethical situations, there has to be a little bit of wiggle room for those super-minor cases where it just makes sense to say: “You don’t have to go find somebody else to do this. I can prescribe this ointment or this minor thing for you. No one’s objectivity is going to be soured, and you’re not going to feel in any way at risk because I’m going to prescribe this for you.”

Common sense ought to prevail. The default position is don’t do it; however, maybe with a tiny bit of space for what’s minor, what’s routine, and what really does just save people some inconvenience, there I might just give a little.

Dr. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, has disclosed relationships with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

In my job, I spend 99% of my time thinking about ethical issues that arise in the care of human beings. That is the focus of our medical school, and that’s what we do. 

However, there are behaviors that are emerging with respect to pets that bear on human health and require the attention of doctors and nurses who deal with people who are pet owners.

Recently, there has been a great increase in the number of pet owners who are saying, “I’m not going to vaccinate my pets.” As horrible as this sounds, what’s happening is vaccine hesitancy about vaccines used in humans is extending through some people to their pets. 

The number of people who say they don’t trust things like rabies vaccine to be effective or safe for their pet animals is 40%, at least in surveys, and the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that 15%-18% of pet owners are not, in fact, vaccinating their pets against rabies.

Rabies, as I hope everybody knows, is one horrible disease. Even the treatment of it, should you get bitten by a rabid animal, is no fun, expensive, and hopefully something that can be administered quickly. It’s not always the case. Worldwide, at least 70,000 people die from rabies every year.

Obviously, there are many countries that are so terrified of rabies, they won’t let you bring pets in without quarantining them, say, England, for at least 6 months to a year, I believe, because they don’t want rabies getting into their country. They’re very strict about the movement of pets.

It is inexcusable for people, first, not to give their pets vaccines that prevent them getting distemper, parvovirus, or many other diseases that harm the pet. It’s also inexcusable to shorten your pet’s life or ask your patients to care for pets who get sick from many of these diseases that are vaccine preventable.

Worst of all, it’s inexcusable for any pet owner not to give a rabies vaccine to their pets. Were it up to me, I’d say you have to license your pet, and as part of that, you must mandate rabies vaccines for your dogs, cats, and other pets. 

We know what happens when people encounter wild animals like raccoons and rabbits. It is not a good situation. Your pets can easily encounter a rabid animal and then put themselves in a position where they can harm their human owners. 

We have an efficacious, safe treatment. If you’re dealing with someone, it might make sense to ask them, “Do you own a pet? Are you vaccinating?” It may not be something you’d ever thought about, but what we don’t need is rabies back in a bigger way in the United States than it’s been in the past.

I think, as a matter of prudence and public health, maybe firing up that question, “Got a pet in the house and are you vaccinating,” could be part of taking a good history.

 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He disclosed conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I heard recently about a fascinating, important development in artificial intelligence (AI). All kinds of things are happening in AI. Clearly, it’s being used in the background to trace and keep track of medical information inside hospitals.

There are AI bots out there that are starting to talk to patients about, say, mental health issues. Plenty of people are using AI to get information about their medical condition, seeing it supplement search engines, and on and on AI goes. 

It has entered into a space where I think patients may raise questions about whether they should use it or seek opinions from doctors and nurses, particularly those involved with seriously ill people. That space is grieving, and what might be called “death bots.”

Here’s what’s going on. There’s a gentleman I read about online, who was dying of end-stage colon cancer. His wife and he were talking, knowing his death was coming, about what it would be like after his death. She said she would really miss being able to ask him questions about a variety of topics that he was expert at and that he knew very well. 

He thought about it and decided, well, maybe he could record his voice and then use AI to search information that he would record and have available, which could really address questions that his wife might put to “him” once he was gone.

It turns out that a company was formed shortly thereafter, which is now offering the service both in the US and Europe, and in fact, I think perhaps even worldwide, basically saying we’ll record a dying person’s voice. We will help people grieve by allowing people to interact with the AI version of the departed when they’re gone. 

It will be able to, if you will, search not just recorded information but anything they might have online — diaries, things they may have written, earlier videos, and information from earlier parts of their life — to generate plausible answers to questions that might be put to the artificial version of the deceased.

Obviously, this would allow not only spouses but grandchildren and people in future generations to have some way to interact with an ancestor who’s gone. It may allow people to feel comfort when they miss a loved one, to hear their voice, and not just in a prerecorded way but creatively interacting with them.

On the other hand, there are clearly many ethical issues about creating an artificial version of yourself. One obvious issue is how accurate this AI version of you will be if the death bot can create information that sounds like you, but really isn’t what you would have said, despite the effort to glean it from recordings and past information about you. Is it all right if people wander from the truth in trying to interact with someone who’s died? 

There are other ways to leave memories behind. You certainly can record messages so that you can control the content. Many people video themselves and so on. There are obviously people who would say that they have a diary or have written information they can leave behind. 

Is there a place in terms of accuracy for a kind of artificial version of ourselves to go on forever? Another interesting issue is who controls that. Can you add to it after your death? Can information be shared about you with third parties who don’t sign up for the service? Maybe the police take an interest in how you died. You can imagine many scenarios where questions might come up about wanting to access these data that the artificial agent is providing. 

Some people might say that it’s just not the way to grieve. Maybe the best way to grieve is to accept death and not try to interact with a constructed version of yourself once you’ve passed. That isn’t really accepting death. It’s a form, perhaps, of denial of death, and maybe that isn’t going to be good for the mental health of survivors who really have not come to terms with the fact that someone has passed on.

I’m not against these death bots or AI versions of trying to leave a legacy. There are all kinds of legacies that people might want to leave. While perhaps not 100% accurate, I can see how this technology has a use. 

I do think one has to go in with their eyes open. We need consent before anything like this is really purchased by or sold to surviving people. They really have to understand it may not be an accurate version of what the deceased might have said in response to questions, conversations, or interactions. 

I think we need to know who controls the information, who can erase it, and who can say, “I’m done with it, and I don’t want my husband’s AI to go on anymore.”

All that said, it’s an interesting development in a world in which I think those who are very ill might start to plan to leave a legacy that is more than just a diary or a video message. It becomes a kind of ongoing, artificial, interactive version of themselves that may provide some people with comfort.

Dr. Caplan, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I heard recently about a fascinating, important development in artificial intelligence (AI). All kinds of things are happening in AI. Clearly, it’s being used in the background to trace and keep track of medical information inside hospitals.

There are AI bots out there that are starting to talk to patients about, say, mental health issues. Plenty of people are using AI to get information about their medical condition, seeing it supplement search engines, and on and on AI goes. 

It has entered into a space where I think patients may raise questions about whether they should use it or seek opinions from doctors and nurses, particularly those involved with seriously ill people. That space is grieving, and what might be called “death bots.”

Here’s what’s going on. There’s a gentleman I read about online, who was dying of end-stage colon cancer. His wife and he were talking, knowing his death was coming, about what it would be like after his death. She said she would really miss being able to ask him questions about a variety of topics that he was expert at and that he knew very well. 

He thought about it and decided, well, maybe he could record his voice and then use AI to search information that he would record and have available, which could really address questions that his wife might put to “him” once he was gone.

It turns out that a company was formed shortly thereafter, which is now offering the service both in the US and Europe, and in fact, I think perhaps even worldwide, basically saying we’ll record a dying person’s voice. We will help people grieve by allowing people to interact with the AI version of the departed when they’re gone. 

It will be able to, if you will, search not just recorded information but anything they might have online — diaries, things they may have written, earlier videos, and information from earlier parts of their life — to generate plausible answers to questions that might be put to the artificial version of the deceased.

Obviously, this would allow not only spouses but grandchildren and people in future generations to have some way to interact with an ancestor who’s gone. It may allow people to feel comfort when they miss a loved one, to hear their voice, and not just in a prerecorded way but creatively interacting with them.

On the other hand, there are clearly many ethical issues about creating an artificial version of yourself. One obvious issue is how accurate this AI version of you will be if the death bot can create information that sounds like you, but really isn’t what you would have said, despite the effort to glean it from recordings and past information about you. Is it all right if people wander from the truth in trying to interact with someone who’s died? 

There are other ways to leave memories behind. You certainly can record messages so that you can control the content. Many people video themselves and so on. There are obviously people who would say that they have a diary or have written information they can leave behind. 

Is there a place in terms of accuracy for a kind of artificial version of ourselves to go on forever? Another interesting issue is who controls that. Can you add to it after your death? Can information be shared about you with third parties who don’t sign up for the service? Maybe the police take an interest in how you died. You can imagine many scenarios where questions might come up about wanting to access these data that the artificial agent is providing. 

Some people might say that it’s just not the way to grieve. Maybe the best way to grieve is to accept death and not try to interact with a constructed version of yourself once you’ve passed. That isn’t really accepting death. It’s a form, perhaps, of denial of death, and maybe that isn’t going to be good for the mental health of survivors who really have not come to terms with the fact that someone has passed on.

I’m not against these death bots or AI versions of trying to leave a legacy. There are all kinds of legacies that people might want to leave. While perhaps not 100% accurate, I can see how this technology has a use. 

I do think one has to go in with their eyes open. We need consent before anything like this is really purchased by or sold to surviving people. They really have to understand it may not be an accurate version of what the deceased might have said in response to questions, conversations, or interactions. 

I think we need to know who controls the information, who can erase it, and who can say, “I’m done with it, and I don’t want my husband’s AI to go on anymore.”

All that said, it’s an interesting development in a world in which I think those who are very ill might start to plan to leave a legacy that is more than just a diary or a video message. It becomes a kind of ongoing, artificial, interactive version of themselves that may provide some people with comfort.

Dr. Caplan, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I heard recently about a fascinating, important development in artificial intelligence (AI). All kinds of things are happening in AI. Clearly, it’s being used in the background to trace and keep track of medical information inside hospitals.

There are AI bots out there that are starting to talk to patients about, say, mental health issues. Plenty of people are using AI to get information about their medical condition, seeing it supplement search engines, and on and on AI goes. 

It has entered into a space where I think patients may raise questions about whether they should use it or seek opinions from doctors and nurses, particularly those involved with seriously ill people. That space is grieving, and what might be called “death bots.”

Here’s what’s going on. There’s a gentleman I read about online, who was dying of end-stage colon cancer. His wife and he were talking, knowing his death was coming, about what it would be like after his death. She said she would really miss being able to ask him questions about a variety of topics that he was expert at and that he knew very well. 

He thought about it and decided, well, maybe he could record his voice and then use AI to search information that he would record and have available, which could really address questions that his wife might put to “him” once he was gone.

It turns out that a company was formed shortly thereafter, which is now offering the service both in the US and Europe, and in fact, I think perhaps even worldwide, basically saying we’ll record a dying person’s voice. We will help people grieve by allowing people to interact with the AI version of the departed when they’re gone. 

It will be able to, if you will, search not just recorded information but anything they might have online — diaries, things they may have written, earlier videos, and information from earlier parts of their life — to generate plausible answers to questions that might be put to the artificial version of the deceased.

Obviously, this would allow not only spouses but grandchildren and people in future generations to have some way to interact with an ancestor who’s gone. It may allow people to feel comfort when they miss a loved one, to hear their voice, and not just in a prerecorded way but creatively interacting with them.

On the other hand, there are clearly many ethical issues about creating an artificial version of yourself. One obvious issue is how accurate this AI version of you will be if the death bot can create information that sounds like you, but really isn’t what you would have said, despite the effort to glean it from recordings and past information about you. Is it all right if people wander from the truth in trying to interact with someone who’s died? 

There are other ways to leave memories behind. You certainly can record messages so that you can control the content. Many people video themselves and so on. There are obviously people who would say that they have a diary or have written information they can leave behind. 

Is there a place in terms of accuracy for a kind of artificial version of ourselves to go on forever? Another interesting issue is who controls that. Can you add to it after your death? Can information be shared about you with third parties who don’t sign up for the service? Maybe the police take an interest in how you died. You can imagine many scenarios where questions might come up about wanting to access these data that the artificial agent is providing. 

Some people might say that it’s just not the way to grieve. Maybe the best way to grieve is to accept death and not try to interact with a constructed version of yourself once you’ve passed. That isn’t really accepting death. It’s a form, perhaps, of denial of death, and maybe that isn’t going to be good for the mental health of survivors who really have not come to terms with the fact that someone has passed on.

I’m not against these death bots or AI versions of trying to leave a legacy. There are all kinds of legacies that people might want to leave. While perhaps not 100% accurate, I can see how this technology has a use. 

I do think one has to go in with their eyes open. We need consent before anything like this is really purchased by or sold to surviving people. They really have to understand it may not be an accurate version of what the deceased might have said in response to questions, conversations, or interactions. 

I think we need to know who controls the information, who can erase it, and who can say, “I’m done with it, and I don’t want my husband’s AI to go on anymore.”

All that said, it’s an interesting development in a world in which I think those who are very ill might start to plan to leave a legacy that is more than just a diary or a video message. It becomes a kind of ongoing, artificial, interactive version of themselves that may provide some people with comfort.

Dr. Caplan, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City, reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Lawyers have the saying, “Bad facts make for bad cases; bad cases make for bad laws.” What we’re seeing, I fear, all too often in discussions about reproductive rights, reproductive behavior, and attempts to regulate and legislate with respect to abortion and contraception are many bad facts.

I do think it’s important that science and medicine speak up in local settings and every opportunity they have, not so much to say what government should do or to say whether they think a particular law is good or bad, but certainly to get the facts straight in their role as doctors, sometimes as scientists, and as caregivers.

Bad facts are making many bad policies in the reproductive behavior space. For example, there are many people, mainly on the conservative side, who are saying things like intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, and even birth control cause abortions. That is simply not true.

There are interventions that prevent fertilization from occurring. There are also interventions that prevent implantation from occurring. Neither of those are abortions. If an embryo has not implanted into a womb, it is not, by any biological definition, a pregnancy. 

In situations where a barrier method or something else prevents sperm and egg from meeting or if there is an agent that prevents an egg from implanting, these are facts that legislators, the public, and even your patients need to understand if they’re going to make sound policy about access to methods used to control reproduction.

Similarly, you can see debates about whether embryos are deserving of rights. An Alabama court has ruled that embryos are tiny children. A court can say what it wishes in terms of legal status, but it shouldn’t be deviating from the facts. 

The facts are clear. Embryos outside of a uterus implanted are not babies. They are not children. At most, an embryo in a dish might be considered, let’s say, a possible person. Once it implants in a uterus, it may become a potential person because it then still has a failure rate, postimplantation, of not becoming a baby that’s very high. Approximately 40%-50% of such embryos are genetically flawed and aren’t going to be able to turn into a child.

The notion that every embryo, whether it’s stored in a tank or sitting in a dish, is somehow a tiny child, factually is just not true. You can’t make good policy if you ignore the facts. People may wish to protect embryos. They may wish to restrict in vitro fertilization. They may wish to have people implant any embryo that is created and mandate that it has to happen because they don’t want any tiny children not to be brought to term.

Factually, they’re operating outside the realm of what biology and medicine know. There’s no tiny baby, no homunculus, or no preformed baby inside an embryo. An egg that simply fails to implant is not technically even a pregnancy. 

I think all of us have an obligation when we’re in disputes, wherever they occur, whether we’re fighting about laws, having an argument with the neighbors, or speaking to younger high school students or even patients, we need to try to make clear the facts about what we know about eggs, how birth control works, and embryos and their failure rate. 

We also have to be clear about the significance of saying the facts have to guide public policy. I think the facts should, but unfortunately, I don’t think that’s always been true in recent years. As efforts heat up to intervene more with things like contraception, getting the facts straight becomes even more important and more of a duty for those who know best.

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Lawyers have the saying, “Bad facts make for bad cases; bad cases make for bad laws.” What we’re seeing, I fear, all too often in discussions about reproductive rights, reproductive behavior, and attempts to regulate and legislate with respect to abortion and contraception are many bad facts.

I do think it’s important that science and medicine speak up in local settings and every opportunity they have, not so much to say what government should do or to say whether they think a particular law is good or bad, but certainly to get the facts straight in their role as doctors, sometimes as scientists, and as caregivers.

Bad facts are making many bad policies in the reproductive behavior space. For example, there are many people, mainly on the conservative side, who are saying things like intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, and even birth control cause abortions. That is simply not true.

There are interventions that prevent fertilization from occurring. There are also interventions that prevent implantation from occurring. Neither of those are abortions. If an embryo has not implanted into a womb, it is not, by any biological definition, a pregnancy. 

In situations where a barrier method or something else prevents sperm and egg from meeting or if there is an agent that prevents an egg from implanting, these are facts that legislators, the public, and even your patients need to understand if they’re going to make sound policy about access to methods used to control reproduction.

Similarly, you can see debates about whether embryos are deserving of rights. An Alabama court has ruled that embryos are tiny children. A court can say what it wishes in terms of legal status, but it shouldn’t be deviating from the facts. 

The facts are clear. Embryos outside of a uterus implanted are not babies. They are not children. At most, an embryo in a dish might be considered, let’s say, a possible person. Once it implants in a uterus, it may become a potential person because it then still has a failure rate, postimplantation, of not becoming a baby that’s very high. Approximately 40%-50% of such embryos are genetically flawed and aren’t going to be able to turn into a child.

The notion that every embryo, whether it’s stored in a tank or sitting in a dish, is somehow a tiny child, factually is just not true. You can’t make good policy if you ignore the facts. People may wish to protect embryos. They may wish to restrict in vitro fertilization. They may wish to have people implant any embryo that is created and mandate that it has to happen because they don’t want any tiny children not to be brought to term.

Factually, they’re operating outside the realm of what biology and medicine know. There’s no tiny baby, no homunculus, or no preformed baby inside an embryo. An egg that simply fails to implant is not technically even a pregnancy. 

I think all of us have an obligation when we’re in disputes, wherever they occur, whether we’re fighting about laws, having an argument with the neighbors, or speaking to younger high school students or even patients, we need to try to make clear the facts about what we know about eggs, how birth control works, and embryos and their failure rate. 

We also have to be clear about the significance of saying the facts have to guide public policy. I think the facts should, but unfortunately, I don’t think that’s always been true in recent years. As efforts heat up to intervene more with things like contraception, getting the facts straight becomes even more important and more of a duty for those who know best.

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Lawyers have the saying, “Bad facts make for bad cases; bad cases make for bad laws.” What we’re seeing, I fear, all too often in discussions about reproductive rights, reproductive behavior, and attempts to regulate and legislate with respect to abortion and contraception are many bad facts.

I do think it’s important that science and medicine speak up in local settings and every opportunity they have, not so much to say what government should do or to say whether they think a particular law is good or bad, but certainly to get the facts straight in their role as doctors, sometimes as scientists, and as caregivers.

Bad facts are making many bad policies in the reproductive behavior space. For example, there are many people, mainly on the conservative side, who are saying things like intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, and even birth control cause abortions. That is simply not true.

There are interventions that prevent fertilization from occurring. There are also interventions that prevent implantation from occurring. Neither of those are abortions. If an embryo has not implanted into a womb, it is not, by any biological definition, a pregnancy. 

In situations where a barrier method or something else prevents sperm and egg from meeting or if there is an agent that prevents an egg from implanting, these are facts that legislators, the public, and even your patients need to understand if they’re going to make sound policy about access to methods used to control reproduction.

Similarly, you can see debates about whether embryos are deserving of rights. An Alabama court has ruled that embryos are tiny children. A court can say what it wishes in terms of legal status, but it shouldn’t be deviating from the facts. 

The facts are clear. Embryos outside of a uterus implanted are not babies. They are not children. At most, an embryo in a dish might be considered, let’s say, a possible person. Once it implants in a uterus, it may become a potential person because it then still has a failure rate, postimplantation, of not becoming a baby that’s very high. Approximately 40%-50% of such embryos are genetically flawed and aren’t going to be able to turn into a child.

The notion that every embryo, whether it’s stored in a tank or sitting in a dish, is somehow a tiny child, factually is just not true. You can’t make good policy if you ignore the facts. People may wish to protect embryos. They may wish to restrict in vitro fertilization. They may wish to have people implant any embryo that is created and mandate that it has to happen because they don’t want any tiny children not to be brought to term.

Factually, they’re operating outside the realm of what biology and medicine know. There’s no tiny baby, no homunculus, or no preformed baby inside an embryo. An egg that simply fails to implant is not technically even a pregnancy. 

I think all of us have an obligation when we’re in disputes, wherever they occur, whether we’re fighting about laws, having an argument with the neighbors, or speaking to younger high school students or even patients, we need to try to make clear the facts about what we know about eggs, how birth control works, and embryos and their failure rate. 

We also have to be clear about the significance of saying the facts have to guide public policy. I think the facts should, but unfortunately, I don’t think that’s always been true in recent years. As efforts heat up to intervene more with things like contraception, getting the facts straight becomes even more important and more of a duty for those who know best.

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

There are many things screwy with our healthcare system. Many of you [reading] this are dealing with bureaucracy, paperwork, all sorts of constraints, restraints, and requirements that sometimes make the practice of medicine, or even nursing, difficult.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything screwier, from a moral point of view, than the system we have that allows for preauthorization by third-party payers, or insurers, in order to give care to patients. It’s pretty clear that a third-party payer has a conflict of interest. It’s simple: They don’t want to spend money.

Their goal as profit-making companies is to reduce what it is that they’re going to authorize. That clearly is driving how the preauthorization process works. We’re not getting a neutral review by third parties of the appropriateness of treatment recommendations or somebody saying, this is the standard of care and this is what ought to happen.

We’re letting the people who have the pocketbooks and the wallets have prior approval of what the doctor thinks is correct. That is really not the way to practice medicine. 

We now have more evidence about what really is going on. A doctor was recently interviewed by ProPublica and said that she had worked for Cigna as a reviewer. Basically, the message she got from that insurer was to speed it up, go fast, and basically “deny, deny, deny” when she got requests. Those are her words, not mine.

We get a peek under the tent of how this works, and Dr. Day is basically saying she had to leave because she just didn’t feel that it was evidence-driven. It was driven by concerns about who’s going to lose money or make money.

If you want to check to see whether something is appropriate, the question becomes, who ought to do prior review? 

Who does it now? Sometimes doctors. Sometimes nurses who aren’t in the specialty where the request is coming in for preapproval. I’ve even seen situations where some companies use nurses in other countries, such as the Philippines, to do preapproval. They send them information, like a clip, to use to deny things that basically is boilerplate language, whatever the request is.

Looming up now, some insurers are starting to think, well, maybe artificial intelligence could do it. Just review the written request, trigger certain responses on the part of the artificial intelligence — it can deny the claims just as well as a human — and maybe it’s even cheaper to set up that system for the insurer.

This is ethically nuts. We need to have a system where doctors’ judgments drive what patients get. You listen to doctors, as I do, about preapproval access and they say patients sometimes give up trying to get what they think is needed. Continuity of care is interrupted if they have to keep making requests all the time.

There are adverse events when the thing that the doctor thought was most appropriate isn’t approved and something else is used that is less safe or less efficacious. It isn’t in patient interest to have the person with the wallet saying, this is what we think you need, and then having unqualified people or even automated intelligence with no accountability and no transparency get involved in preauthorization.

This system costs us money because middlemen are doing all this work. It basically becomes one of the huge scandals, in my view, of our health system, that doctors don’t ultimately decide what the patient needs. A preauthorizing third party or robot, without transparency, without accountability, and behind closed doors second-guesses what’s going on.

I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine.

Arthur L. Caplan, Director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I had a case a couple years ago in which I found myself completely at odds with the person complaining. A daughter came to me and said [paraphrasing], look, my dad is in a nursing home, and he’s just there for care that he needs, but he’s mentally competent. He’s enjoying watching television, playing games. He plays bridge and does many things. The nursing home is letting him have a romantic relationship with a woman who’s also in the nursing home. I think you, ethicist, should both intervene and try to stop that, and write more about the immorality of facilities like nursing homes or other long-term care settings permitting romance or sexual relations to take place. 

I was reminded of that case because a report recently appeared that sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise among the elderly, both in nursing homes and in other settings. This obviously is linked up to another technological advance: the erectile dysfunction drugs. 

I’m sure there are many men who, at one point in their lives, could not engage in sexual activity due to impotence. We have found a treatment for erectile dysfunction. Loads and loads of men are using it, and we forget that some of them are going to be older. The rate of impotence goes up directly with aging. If you’re in a nursing home, home care, or wherever you are, you may find yourself able to engage in sex in a way that your dad or your granddad may not have been. 

We also know — and I found this out when I was tracking sales of erectile dysfunction drugs — that some of these older men are going to visit prostitutes. That’s another route, unsafe sex, for sexual diseases to be spreading into various older communities. 

Morally, I think every individual who is competent and wishes to engage in a romantic or sexual relationship should be able to do so. If they’re within a marriage and they want to resume sexual activity because they get better or they can use these drugs, well, that’s great. If they’re single and they’re just living with others and they form an interesting romantic relationship, why shouldn’t they be allowed to engage in sex? 

It is not only something that I didn’t agree with the complaining daughter about, but also I think some of these facilities should make more rooms for privacy and more opportunity for intimacy. It’s not like we should tell granddad that he’s living in a college dorm and try to make sure that his roommate doesn’t come in if he’s going to have his girlfriend over. 

We can do better and we ought to do better. We ought to make sexuality and romance part of the possibility of enjoying your older years, if that’s what you wish to do. 

Are there ethical issues? Sure. Obviously, we should remember, if we have older patients, to talk to them about sexually transmitted diseases as part of a discussion of their sex life. We shouldn’t presume that they’re not doing something. We should presume that they might be, and then remind them about safe sex, particularly if they’re going to use third parties like prostitutes. 

Competency becomes important. It’s one thing to have a mutually agreed upon romantic relationship. It’s another thing if somebody is taking advantage of someone who has Alzheimer’s or severe mental dysfunction and they’re not consenting. 

How do we determine that and how do we manage that? I think people who are incompetent need to be protected from sexual advances unless they have a relative or someone who says they can engage if they enjoy it and it brings them pleasure. I wouldn’t just have people who are vulnerable, exploited, or acting in a predatory way toward others. 

As I said, we need to rethink the design of where older people are living, whether it’s assisted living, nursing home living, or wherever, just to give them the opportunity to have a full life, as any individual would have once they’re past the age of majority, no matter who they want to have romance with and what they want to do in terms of how far that intimacy goes. 

Sadly, I didn’t agree with the daughter who came to me and asked me to stop it. I wouldn’t stop it nor would I publish against it. There are risks that we ought to be aware of, including exploiting vulnerable people if they can’t consent, and the danger of transmission of disease, as would be true in any group that might engage in high-risk behavior. 

Another risk may be injury if someone is frail and can’t physically sustain sexual intimacy because they’re just too frail to do it. We also need to be sure to address the issue of sexuality with patients to make sure they know what’s going on, what risks there are, what rights they have, and so on. 

At the end of the day, I’m not in the camp that says, “Just say no” when it comes to sex among the elderly. 

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); he also serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I had a case a couple years ago in which I found myself completely at odds with the person complaining. A daughter came to me and said [paraphrasing], look, my dad is in a nursing home, and he’s just there for care that he needs, but he’s mentally competent. He’s enjoying watching television, playing games. He plays bridge and does many things. The nursing home is letting him have a romantic relationship with a woman who’s also in the nursing home. I think you, ethicist, should both intervene and try to stop that, and write more about the immorality of facilities like nursing homes or other long-term care settings permitting romance or sexual relations to take place. 

I was reminded of that case because a report recently appeared that sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise among the elderly, both in nursing homes and in other settings. This obviously is linked up to another technological advance: the erectile dysfunction drugs. 

I’m sure there are many men who, at one point in their lives, could not engage in sexual activity due to impotence. We have found a treatment for erectile dysfunction. Loads and loads of men are using it, and we forget that some of them are going to be older. The rate of impotence goes up directly with aging. If you’re in a nursing home, home care, or wherever you are, you may find yourself able to engage in sex in a way that your dad or your granddad may not have been. 

We also know — and I found this out when I was tracking sales of erectile dysfunction drugs — that some of these older men are going to visit prostitutes. That’s another route, unsafe sex, for sexual diseases to be spreading into various older communities. 

Morally, I think every individual who is competent and wishes to engage in a romantic or sexual relationship should be able to do so. If they’re within a marriage and they want to resume sexual activity because they get better or they can use these drugs, well, that’s great. If they’re single and they’re just living with others and they form an interesting romantic relationship, why shouldn’t they be allowed to engage in sex? 

It is not only something that I didn’t agree with the complaining daughter about, but also I think some of these facilities should make more rooms for privacy and more opportunity for intimacy. It’s not like we should tell granddad that he’s living in a college dorm and try to make sure that his roommate doesn’t come in if he’s going to have his girlfriend over. 

We can do better and we ought to do better. We ought to make sexuality and romance part of the possibility of enjoying your older years, if that’s what you wish to do. 

Are there ethical issues? Sure. Obviously, we should remember, if we have older patients, to talk to them about sexually transmitted diseases as part of a discussion of their sex life. We shouldn’t presume that they’re not doing something. We should presume that they might be, and then remind them about safe sex, particularly if they’re going to use third parties like prostitutes. 

Competency becomes important. It’s one thing to have a mutually agreed upon romantic relationship. It’s another thing if somebody is taking advantage of someone who has Alzheimer’s or severe mental dysfunction and they’re not consenting. 

How do we determine that and how do we manage that? I think people who are incompetent need to be protected from sexual advances unless they have a relative or someone who says they can engage if they enjoy it and it brings them pleasure. I wouldn’t just have people who are vulnerable, exploited, or acting in a predatory way toward others. 

As I said, we need to rethink the design of where older people are living, whether it’s assisted living, nursing home living, or wherever, just to give them the opportunity to have a full life, as any individual would have once they’re past the age of majority, no matter who they want to have romance with and what they want to do in terms of how far that intimacy goes. 

Sadly, I didn’t agree with the daughter who came to me and asked me to stop it. I wouldn’t stop it nor would I publish against it. There are risks that we ought to be aware of, including exploiting vulnerable people if they can’t consent, and the danger of transmission of disease, as would be true in any group that might engage in high-risk behavior. 

Another risk may be injury if someone is frail and can’t physically sustain sexual intimacy because they’re just too frail to do it. We also need to be sure to address the issue of sexuality with patients to make sure they know what’s going on, what risks there are, what rights they have, and so on. 

At the end of the day, I’m not in the camp that says, “Just say no” when it comes to sex among the elderly. 

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); he also serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

I had a case a couple years ago in which I found myself completely at odds with the person complaining. A daughter came to me and said [paraphrasing], look, my dad is in a nursing home, and he’s just there for care that he needs, but he’s mentally competent. He’s enjoying watching television, playing games. He plays bridge and does many things. The nursing home is letting him have a romantic relationship with a woman who’s also in the nursing home. I think you, ethicist, should both intervene and try to stop that, and write more about the immorality of facilities like nursing homes or other long-term care settings permitting romance or sexual relations to take place. 

I was reminded of that case because a report recently appeared that sexually transmitted diseases are on the rise among the elderly, both in nursing homes and in other settings. This obviously is linked up to another technological advance: the erectile dysfunction drugs. 

I’m sure there are many men who, at one point in their lives, could not engage in sexual activity due to impotence. We have found a treatment for erectile dysfunction. Loads and loads of men are using it, and we forget that some of them are going to be older. The rate of impotence goes up directly with aging. If you’re in a nursing home, home care, or wherever you are, you may find yourself able to engage in sex in a way that your dad or your granddad may not have been. 

We also know — and I found this out when I was tracking sales of erectile dysfunction drugs — that some of these older men are going to visit prostitutes. That’s another route, unsafe sex, for sexual diseases to be spreading into various older communities. 

Morally, I think every individual who is competent and wishes to engage in a romantic or sexual relationship should be able to do so. If they’re within a marriage and they want to resume sexual activity because they get better or they can use these drugs, well, that’s great. If they’re single and they’re just living with others and they form an interesting romantic relationship, why shouldn’t they be allowed to engage in sex? 

It is not only something that I didn’t agree with the complaining daughter about, but also I think some of these facilities should make more rooms for privacy and more opportunity for intimacy. It’s not like we should tell granddad that he’s living in a college dorm and try to make sure that his roommate doesn’t come in if he’s going to have his girlfriend over. 

We can do better and we ought to do better. We ought to make sexuality and romance part of the possibility of enjoying your older years, if that’s what you wish to do. 

Are there ethical issues? Sure. Obviously, we should remember, if we have older patients, to talk to them about sexually transmitted diseases as part of a discussion of their sex life. We shouldn’t presume that they’re not doing something. We should presume that they might be, and then remind them about safe sex, particularly if they’re going to use third parties like prostitutes. 

Competency becomes important. It’s one thing to have a mutually agreed upon romantic relationship. It’s another thing if somebody is taking advantage of someone who has Alzheimer’s or severe mental dysfunction and they’re not consenting. 

How do we determine that and how do we manage that? I think people who are incompetent need to be protected from sexual advances unless they have a relative or someone who says they can engage if they enjoy it and it brings them pleasure. I wouldn’t just have people who are vulnerable, exploited, or acting in a predatory way toward others. 

As I said, we need to rethink the design of where older people are living, whether it’s assisted living, nursing home living, or wherever, just to give them the opportunity to have a full life, as any individual would have once they’re past the age of majority, no matter who they want to have romance with and what they want to do in terms of how far that intimacy goes. 

Sadly, I didn’t agree with the daughter who came to me and asked me to stop it. I wouldn’t stop it nor would I publish against it. There are risks that we ought to be aware of, including exploiting vulnerable people if they can’t consent, and the danger of transmission of disease, as would be true in any group that might engage in high-risk behavior. 

Another risk may be injury if someone is frail and can’t physically sustain sexual intimacy because they’re just too frail to do it. We also need to be sure to address the issue of sexuality with patients to make sure they know what’s going on, what risks there are, what rights they have, and so on. 

At the end of the day, I’m not in the camp that says, “Just say no” when it comes to sex among the elderly. 

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); he also serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There’s a growing scandal in mental health care. Recent studies are showing that certain medications that basically are used to, if you will, quiet patients — antipsychotic drugs — are being overused, particularly in facilities that serve poorer people and people who are minorities. This situation is utterly, ethically unacceptable and it’s something that we are starting to get really pressed to solve. 

Part of this is due to the fact that numbers of caregivers are in short supply. We need to get more people trained. We need to get more mental health providers at all levels into facilities in order to provide care, and not substitute that inability to have a provider present and minimize risk to patients by having drug-induced sleepiness, soporific behavior, or, if you will, snowing them just because we don’t have enough people to keep an eye on them. Furthermore, we can’t let them engage in some activities, even things like walking around, because we’re worried about falls. The nursing homes or mental health facilities don’t want anybody to get injured, much less killed, because that’s going to really bring government agencies down on them.

What do we do, aside from trying to get more numbers in there? California came up with a law not too long ago that basically put the burden of using these drugs on consent. They passed a law that said the patient, before going under and being administered any type of psychoactive drug, has to consent; or if they’re really unable to do that, their relative or next of kin should have to consent.

California law now puts the burden on getting consent from the patient in order to use these drugs. It’s not a good solution. It still permits the use of the drugs to substitute for the inability to provide adequate numbers of people to provide care in safe environments. It’s almost like saying, “We know you’re going into a dangerous place. We can’t really reduce the danger, so we’re going to make sure that you stay in your seat. You better consent to that because otherwise things could not go well for you in this mental institution.” 

That’s not a sound argument for the use of informed consent. Moreover, I’m very skeptical that many of these people in mental institutions do have the capacity to either say, “Fine, give me psychoactive drugs if I have to stay here,” or “No, I don’t want that. I’ll take my chances.”

They’re vulnerable people. Many of them may not be fully incompetent, but they often have compromised competency. Relatives may be thinking, Well, the right thing to do is just to make sure they don’t get hurt or injure themselves. Yes, give them the drugs. 

Consent, while I support it, is not the solution to what is fundamentally an infrastructure problem, a personnel problem, and one of the shames of American healthcare, which is lousy long-term mental health care. For too many people, their care is in the street. For too many people, their care is taking place in institutions that have dangerous designs where people either get injured, can’t provide enough spacing, or just don’t have the people to do it. 

Let’s move to fix the mental health care system and not be in a situation where we say to people, “The system stinks and you’re at risk. Is it okay with you if we drug you because we can’t think of any other way to keep you safe, given the rotten nature of the institutions that we’ve got?” 

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There’s a growing scandal in mental health care. Recent studies are showing that certain medications that basically are used to, if you will, quiet patients — antipsychotic drugs — are being overused, particularly in facilities that serve poorer people and people who are minorities. This situation is utterly, ethically unacceptable and it’s something that we are starting to get really pressed to solve. 

Part of this is due to the fact that numbers of caregivers are in short supply. We need to get more people trained. We need to get more mental health providers at all levels into facilities in order to provide care, and not substitute that inability to have a provider present and minimize risk to patients by having drug-induced sleepiness, soporific behavior, or, if you will, snowing them just because we don’t have enough people to keep an eye on them. Furthermore, we can’t let them engage in some activities, even things like walking around, because we’re worried about falls. The nursing homes or mental health facilities don’t want anybody to get injured, much less killed, because that’s going to really bring government agencies down on them.

What do we do, aside from trying to get more numbers in there? California came up with a law not too long ago that basically put the burden of using these drugs on consent. They passed a law that said the patient, before going under and being administered any type of psychoactive drug, has to consent; or if they’re really unable to do that, their relative or next of kin should have to consent.

California law now puts the burden on getting consent from the patient in order to use these drugs. It’s not a good solution. It still permits the use of the drugs to substitute for the inability to provide adequate numbers of people to provide care in safe environments. It’s almost like saying, “We know you’re going into a dangerous place. We can’t really reduce the danger, so we’re going to make sure that you stay in your seat. You better consent to that because otherwise things could not go well for you in this mental institution.” 

That’s not a sound argument for the use of informed consent. Moreover, I’m very skeptical that many of these people in mental institutions do have the capacity to either say, “Fine, give me psychoactive drugs if I have to stay here,” or “No, I don’t want that. I’ll take my chances.”

They’re vulnerable people. Many of them may not be fully incompetent, but they often have compromised competency. Relatives may be thinking, Well, the right thing to do is just to make sure they don’t get hurt or injure themselves. Yes, give them the drugs. 

Consent, while I support it, is not the solution to what is fundamentally an infrastructure problem, a personnel problem, and one of the shames of American healthcare, which is lousy long-term mental health care. For too many people, their care is in the street. For too many people, their care is taking place in institutions that have dangerous designs where people either get injured, can’t provide enough spacing, or just don’t have the people to do it. 

Let’s move to fix the mental health care system and not be in a situation where we say to people, “The system stinks and you’re at risk. Is it okay with you if we drug you because we can’t think of any other way to keep you safe, given the rotten nature of the institutions that we’ve got?” 

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

There’s a growing scandal in mental health care. Recent studies are showing that certain medications that basically are used to, if you will, quiet patients — antipsychotic drugs — are being overused, particularly in facilities that serve poorer people and people who are minorities. This situation is utterly, ethically unacceptable and it’s something that we are starting to get really pressed to solve. 

Part of this is due to the fact that numbers of caregivers are in short supply. We need to get more people trained. We need to get more mental health providers at all levels into facilities in order to provide care, and not substitute that inability to have a provider present and minimize risk to patients by having drug-induced sleepiness, soporific behavior, or, if you will, snowing them just because we don’t have enough people to keep an eye on them. Furthermore, we can’t let them engage in some activities, even things like walking around, because we’re worried about falls. The nursing homes or mental health facilities don’t want anybody to get injured, much less killed, because that’s going to really bring government agencies down on them.

What do we do, aside from trying to get more numbers in there? California came up with a law not too long ago that basically put the burden of using these drugs on consent. They passed a law that said the patient, before going under and being administered any type of psychoactive drug, has to consent; or if they’re really unable to do that, their relative or next of kin should have to consent.

California law now puts the burden on getting consent from the patient in order to use these drugs. It’s not a good solution. It still permits the use of the drugs to substitute for the inability to provide adequate numbers of people to provide care in safe environments. It’s almost like saying, “We know you’re going into a dangerous place. We can’t really reduce the danger, so we’re going to make sure that you stay in your seat. You better consent to that because otherwise things could not go well for you in this mental institution.” 

That’s not a sound argument for the use of informed consent. Moreover, I’m very skeptical that many of these people in mental institutions do have the capacity to either say, “Fine, give me psychoactive drugs if I have to stay here,” or “No, I don’t want that. I’ll take my chances.”

They’re vulnerable people. Many of them may not be fully incompetent, but they often have compromised competency. Relatives may be thinking, Well, the right thing to do is just to make sure they don’t get hurt or injure themselves. Yes, give them the drugs. 

Consent, while I support it, is not the solution to what is fundamentally an infrastructure problem, a personnel problem, and one of the shames of American healthcare, which is lousy long-term mental health care. For too many people, their care is in the street. For too many people, their care is taking place in institutions that have dangerous designs where people either get injured, can’t provide enough spacing, or just don’t have the people to do it. 

Let’s move to fix the mental health care system and not be in a situation where we say to people, “The system stinks and you’re at risk. Is it okay with you if we drug you because we can’t think of any other way to keep you safe, given the rotten nature of the institutions that we’ve got?” 

Dr. Caplan is director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York. He disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position) and serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

There has been a large amount of news lately about dating online and dating apps. Probably the most common way younger people find potential partners is to go online and see who’s there that they might want to meet. 

Online dating is also notorious for being full of scammers. There are all kinds of people out there that you have to be careful of, who are trying to rip you off by saying, “Send me money, I’m in trouble,” or “Now that we have a relationship, will you support my particular entrepreneurial idea?” Certainly, dangers are there. 

Another danger we don’t talk much about is meeting people who have sexually transmitted diseases. That’s been a problem before websites and before dating apps. I think the opportunity of meeting more people — strangers, people you don’t really know — who may not tell you the truth about their health, and particularly their sexual health, is really out there. 

It’s always good medical advice to tell people to practice safe sex, and that often involves a man wearing a condom. It certainly is the case that we want to attend not just to the prevention of unwanted pregnancy but also to the transmission of diseases. I think it’s very important to tell women of reproductive age to get their HPV shot to try to reduce cancers in their reproductive systems, or sometimes in men — anal cancers, or even being a transmitter of disease. 

Even then, certainly one wants to recommend that, in an age where some people are going to meet many partners that they don’t know well or don’t have much background with, it’s wise to try to prevent diseases using the vaccines we’ve got, using the contraceptive methods that will prevent disease transmission, and reminding people to ask about sex life. 

I did come across a website that just startled me. It’s called HeHealth, and basically it says to men, if you are conscientious about your sex life, take a picture of your penis, send it to us, and we have doctors — I presume they’re US doctors but I don’t know — who will diagnose venereal diseases based on that picture. I presume women could also say, “Before we have sex, or now that we’re approaching that possibility, I want you to send a picture to this company on this website.” 

Now, a couple of reminders. I think we all know this, but just because you’re not manifesting symptoms on your reproductive organs doesn’t mean you don’t have a sexual disease. It’s not a reliable measure. Yes, maybe you could have somebody say: “Oh, that looks nasty. I’m not sure you ought to have sex right now, and maybe you should go get some treatment.” This is going to miss many cases and is not a reliable indicator that your partner is safe in terms of not transmitting diseases to you. 

It also isn’t clear what they do with these images. Do they keep them? Who can see them? Could they resell them? What sort of privacy protection have you got if you decide to use this? 

There’s another issue here, which is, if they misdiagnose someone and you do catch a sexual disease, who’s liable? Can you go after them for using doctors who weren’t competent or transmitting images that weren’t really adequate because you didn’t know how to take that picture properly when you sent that off to them? There are many unknowns. 

The bottom line is that we’re in a different world, I think, of romance. We’re in a world where some people are going to meet more partners. Some people are going to meet more strangers. One approach is to have us take pictures of ourselves, send them off to who knows where, and ask for a green light to go ahead and have sexual relations. I don’t think we’re anywhere close to being able to rely on that as a way to avoid the risks of unprotected sexual behavior. 

We do know what to do in dealing with patients who are sexually active. First, we have to ask them. Then we’ve got to recommend available vaccinations to prevent the transmission of some cancers, the HPV vaccine. Then they need that reminder about safe sexual practices not only to protect against unwanted pregnancy, but still, in this day and age, to protect against syphilis, which is on the rise, plus HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other sexually transmissible diseases. 

I’m not going to rely on the penis picture to make the world safe for sex. I think we have to still use the old-fashioned techniques of education and prevention to do the best we can.

Dr. Caplan is director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, New York City. He reported conflicts of interest with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use and Medscape.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.