Bioethics Discussion Blog: Bush's War and the Smallpox Scare: Science vs Policy

REMINDER: I AM POSTING A NEW TOPIC ABOUT ONCE A WEEK OR PERHAPS TWICE A WEEK. HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T FIND A NEW TOPIC POSTED, THERE ARE AS OF MARCH 2013 OVER 900 TOPIC THREADS TO WHICH YOU CAN READ AND WRITE COMMENTS. I WILL BE AWARE OF EACH COMMENTARY AND MAY COME BACK WITH A REPLY.

TO FIND A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO YOU ON THIS BLOG, SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OR WORDS RELATED TO THE TOPIC IN THE FIELD IN THE LEFT HAND SIDE AT TOP OF THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK ON “SEARCH BLOG”. WITH WELL OVER 900 TOPICS, MOST ABOUT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ETHICAL ISSUES BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC DATE OR EVENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU DON’T PLEASE WRITE TO ME ON THE FEEDBACK THREAD OR BY E-MAIL DoktorMo@aol.com

IMPORTANT REQUEST TO ALL WHO COMMENT ON THIS BLOG: ALL COMMENTERS WHO WISH TO SIGN ON AS ANONYMOUS NEVERTHELESS PLEASE SIGN OFF AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH A CONSISTENT PSEUDONYM NAME OR SOME INITIALS TO HELP MAINTAIN CONTINUITY AND NOT REQUIRE RESPONDERS TO LOOK UP THE DATE AND TIME OF THE POSTING TO DEFINE WHICH ANONYMOUS SAID WHAT. Thanks. ..Maurice

FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK! WRITE YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS BLOG, WHAT IS GOOD, POOR AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FEEDBACK THREAD

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Bush's War and the Smallpox Scare: Science vs Policy

The PBS production “Frontline” recently presented a two day documentary titled “Bush’s War” and included factual details of what led up to the war in Iraq. It was clear from the documentary that the U.S. administration was attempting to provide to the American public a rationale and encourage popular support for going to war with Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction and biologic warfare preparations by Iraq were attributed to valid sources but, of course, subsequently no such preparations were found and the sources were shown to be faulty.

What was not revealed in the “Frontline” story was the Bush administration apparent attempt to further encourage public support for war by implying that Iraq had become a potential threat to cause a fatal smallpox epidemic within the United States and that the threat was sufficient to begin a mass smallpox vaccination program for the American public. This was against professional scientific evidence and advice given to the leader in public health matters, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which operated the program. These facts were developed through an investigation by the Institute of Medicine (IOM)* with its publication in 2005. The entire story of the IOM investigation was summarized by Matthew K. Wynia in the March/April 2006 issue of the American Journal of Bioethics. Here are some excerpts from Dr. Wynia’s article “Risk and Trust in Public Health: A Cautionary Tale”.

Indeed, according to the IOM the vaccination program the Administration created, and CDC endorsed, was "an unprecedented departure" from routine vaccination policy making and there is, "little to suggest that scientific and public health reasoning that typically characterized public health policies was a priority in this case"


According to the investigation, it appears that the CDC was pressured by the administration to participate in the vaccination program.

In fact, the smallpox vaccination program was created just as, "the administration was beginning to build a case for war against Iraq." Dr. Julie Gerberding, the Director of the CDC, in October 2002 drew the connection between vaccination and war planning when she explained the decision not to follow earlier advice from ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] by noting that no new "imminent" smallpox threat existed but, "we are in the process of considering war on our enemies. The context has changed a bit". This contextual change was apparently a very strong influence, because, the IOM reiterates, "There was no apparent public health reasoning behind the decision to offer the vaccine to the public" and indeed, to do so, was "contrary to the basic precepts of public health ethics, which focus on a fair and reasonable balance of risks and benefits among individuals and for the population as a whole."

The IOM criticizes government leaders for not providing any clear rationale, but suggests that a rationale could be inferred from statements by the President and other administration leaders. The IOM notes, for example, that the President, in explaining the vaccination program on December 13, 2002 stated that, “we believe that regimes hostile to the United States may possess this dangerous virus”, The report further notes that press accounts claimed, "two unnamed U.S government officials ... revealed that the federal government had information about Iraq's possession of smallpox virus" and the federal government had "named Iraq as one of the nations suspected of possessing smallpox”.


Though the vaccination program never met the President’s goal of an initial 500,000 civilians vaccinated (only 38,004 were vaccinated with 100 adverse reactions, 2 permanent disabilities and 2 deaths), after April 2003 (“mission accomplished”) and there was no admission by the administration of a lowered threat but the vaccination program was essentially abolished presumably because, as Dr. Wynia writes “public levels of fear were no longer needed to support the invasion."

What this story is all about is grossly unethical behavior by our government, as revealed by the Institute of Medicine investigation, in promoting a vaccination program not based on scientific evidence or scientific advice but to gain public support to begin a war. What was gained was public acceptance of a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. What was lost? Well, as Dr. Wynia emphasizes in his article, it could well be the future trust by the public and healthcare community in the CDC. Will the CDC present to the public the science of an issue or be pressured to follow the orders of another administration? ..Maurice.

*The Institute of Medicine serves as adviser to the nation to improve health. Established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine provides independent, objective, evidence-based advice to policymakers, health professionals, the private sector, and the public. The mission of the Institute of Medicine embraces the health of people everywhere.
Reference: IOM (Institute of Medicine) 2005. Committee on smallpox vaccination program implementation, board on health promotion and disease prevention. A. Baciu, A. P. Anason, K. Stratton and B. Strom, eds, “The smallpox vaccination program; Public health in an age of terrorisrn” Washington DC: National Academies Press.

4 Comments:

At Wednesday, April 02, 2008 8:17:00 AM, Anonymous Kacy said...

What one will do to cover up their mistakes.

 
At Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:01:00 AM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Involve those who are trusted. ..Maurice.

 
At Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:26:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

By the way, visitors might be interested in my thread "If Science is Uncomfortable--DELETE IT!" from Oct. 24,2007 based on a Associated Press news item written the day before:

WASHINGTON -
The White House severely edited congressional testimony given Tuesday by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the impact of climate change on health, removing specific scientific references to potential health risks, according to two sources familiar with the documents.


I wrote:

"I feel that there is a certain guideline in our govenment's behavior regarding science. If it doesn't fit with a particular moral or political end, then delete it. And the government can't even give an excuse that the information deleted was a high national security risk."

It looks like our President has not given up attempting to manipulate the trusted CDC to his own political ends. ..Maurice.

 
At Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:10:00 PM, Blogger Maurice Bernstein, M.D. said...

Want more regarding the influence of the government on the scientific decisions of the CDC?

From USA Today published yesterday:


WASHINGTON — The national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was accused by lawmakers and a whistle-blower on Tuesday of watering down a report on the dangers of formaldehyde exposure.


In February, the CDC released preliminary results showing that most of the 519 units tested had elevated levels of formaldehyde. It urged people to move out of the units.


The agency came under fire for a report it issued a year earlier — drafted at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) — that minimized the dangers of formaldehyde. Commissioned by a FEMA attorney, the report concluded that leaving windows open and air conditioning running would keep formaldehyde below "levels of concern."


What should be the balance between science based decisions and policy decisions and who should make what? Maybe like the FDA, FCC, FAA, the CDC is really an arm of the administration and we should not expect "clean" recommendations based on scientific evidence to come from the CDC. What do you think? ..Maurice.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home