Category: Ethics and Law

Categories : Ethics and Law Surgeries & ProceduresTags :

Plastic Surgeon Loses Medical Licence for Streaming Surgeries on TikTok

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Piron Guillaume on Unspalsh

A plastic surgeon in the US has had her medical licence permanently revoked for livestreaming parts of her surgeries and causing harm to her patients while doing so, according to the Washington Post.

Dr Katherine Grawe, who was also fined US$4500, streamed her operations with between 100 000 and 500 000 viewers at a time, speaking to the camera and on occasion answering viewers’ questions.

Three of her patients whose surgeries she had streamed experienced complications – infections, a perforated intestine and a loss of brain function – that required further medical care. She told the Washington Post that she did not believe that her livestreaming her surgeries had resulted in harm to her patients.

“Nobody wants a complication, and we never want things to go poorly, but any complications that happened with me were not because I was not paying attention,” Grawe said. “My whole goal in life is to give these people confidence and make them more beautiful. And, unfortunately, they suffered these complications, and I feel very sad for them. I would never want anything bad to happen to them.”

She specialised in cosmetic surgery for women’s breasts, as well as tummy tucks and other procedures, Grawe said. She is also being sued by the three patients who had complications. Since she started practising in 2010 with her Dr Roxy practice, she built up a social media following and eventually began livestreaming on TikTok in an effort to break down “this scary wall” between patients and doctors. Her patients all signed consent forms for their procedures to be livestreamed.

Grawe’s licence was suspended in November, and she pleaded with the board, saying that she would never livestream her surgeries again. The board was not moved by her appeal. “Dr Grawe’s social media was more important to her than the lives of the patients she treated,” the board stated.

The board had warned her in 2018 over patient confidentiality concerns in her livestreaming, and again in 2021.

Surgeries conducted in front of an audience are nothing new in medicine; medical students and clinicians alike observe procedures to learn and share knowledge. Some operating theatres are specially designed to host audiences behind windows overlooking the operating table. In the 21st century, it has become commonplace for educational livestreaming of surgeries, with considerable benefits for surgeons and increased anatomy knowledge scores.

There is also some evidence of risks to patients: one review found no increased risk of harm in urology, but this was not true for other surgical fields. Thirteen

Unlike in-person viewing of surgeries, data protection considerations must be employed as operating on a patient often may reveal identifiable information even if not livestreaming to a wide audience. Certain video conferencing platforms may not be secure, and recordings of the procedure may inadvertently be accessible to others, eg being stored on network drives, on the cloud without password protection and so on. There are secure communication apps that can be used to confidentially view and share patient data, such as TigerConnect, Medic Bleep, Forward Health and Siilo.

Categories : Ethics and Law Healthcare Politics and RegulationsTags :

124 Fake Doctors Arrested, Minister of Health Says

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Minister of Health Dr Joe Phaahla has confirmed the arrest of 124 fake doctors as a result of a crackdown by the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA), reports IOL. He revealed the information in a response to a parliamentary question.

He said that the doctors were able to avoid the system by taking cash payments, or working in the practices of registered doctors. Dr Phaahla noted that it was a criminal offence to practice medicine without being registered.

The arrests came as a result of the HPCSA establishing an Inspectorate to crack down on illegal practising medical workers. The Inspectorate currently has offices in all of South Africa’s provinces save Northwest and Northern Cape.

The relevant section of the Act reads [PDF]:

  1. (I) No person shall be entitled to practise within the Republic–
    (a) the profession of a medical practitioner, dentist, psychologist or as an intern; or
    (b) except in so far as it is authorized by the provisions of the Nursing Act, 1957 (Act No. 69 of 1957), the Chiropractors Act, 1971 (Act No. 76 of 1971), the Pharmacy Act, 1974, and sections 32, 33, 34 and 39 of this Act, for gain any other profession the practice of which mainly consists of-
    (i) the physical or mental examination of persons;
    (ii) the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of physical or mental defects, illnesses or deficiencies in man;
    (iii) the giving of advice in regard to such defects, illnesses or deficiencies; or
    (iv) the prescribing or providing of medicine in connection with such defects, illnesses or deficiencies,
    unless he is registered in terms of this Act.

Source: IOL

Categories : Ethics and LawTags :

Court Dismisses MEC’s Attempt to Quash Inquiry into her ‘Killing my Health System’ Remark

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

By Tania Broughton for GroundUp

Limpopo MEC for Health Dr Pophi Ramathuba has failed in her attempt to put a stop to a Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) inquiry into comments she made to a Zimbabwean patient when she visited Bela Bela Hospital last year.

A disciplinary inquiry had been set down for July to probe complaints against her emanating from the conversation which was widely broadcast.

While Pretoria High Court Judge Anthony Millar, in his judgment refusing to grant Ramathuba an interdict, did not detail the complaints, it is public record that she told the patient that Zimbabweans were putting a huge strain on the provincial health system.

She said: “You are killing my health system. It’s unfair.”

Ramathuba brought the application in her capacity as the MEC for health, in two parts, divided into Part A and Part B.

Part A was for an interdict pending Part B – a review application in which she would seek an order declaring the decision of the HPCSA issued against her on 9 February 2023 as unconstitutional, unlawful and invalid, and declaring that the HPCSA lacks jurisdiction over the conduct of the applicant as an MEC.

Only Part A was considered by Judge Millar this week and he ruled on Friday.

In his judgment, he said many complaints had been laid against Ramathuba with the HPCSA as a result of the conversation.

Ramathuba disputed the complaints, both in her capacity as the MEC for Health and as a medical practitioner.

“It is not in issue that the applicant has at all material times been registered as a health professional and remains so and the HPCSA is the custodian of the medical profession,” Judge Millar wrote.

The judge explained that the HPCSA has a two stage complaints procedure. The first is a preliminary inquiry, which may result in the complaint being resolved. If it is not, it is referred to a formal inquiry.

Judge Millar said a preliminary committee had considered the complaints at a meeting at the end of January. The committee had resolved that the applicant was guilty of unprofessional conduct but that it was only a “minor transgression” and that she should be cautioned for unprofessional behaviour, unbecoming of a medical professional for “shouting at a patient’s bedside as the patient was vulnerable at the time”.

The HPCSA, in a letter to Ramathuba, said the acceptance of this penalty would not constitute a conviction and would not be reflected against her name. The matter would be regarded as finalised.

But Ramathuba refused to accept the finding. She wrote to the HPCSA in February this year, challenging it on the basis that it had no jurisdiction over her.

The HPCSA disagreed with this, and set the formal hearing dates.

“The applicant does not want the inquiry to proceed or to attend it … she says she conducted the conversation in her capacity as an MEC and not as a medical practitioner,” Judge Millar said.

“The crisp question is, is the applicant in her capacity as MEC a separate persona from the applicant as a medical practitioner. The office of the MEC is a political one whereas her status as a medical practitioner is a professional one.

“The holding of political office and remaining registered as a medical practitioner are not mutually exclusive. The one hallmark of both is that the individual concerned accepts that they are, and subject themselves to being accountable for their actions.

“It seems to me to be a wholly contrived and self-serving assertion that conduct is determined depending upon ‘which hat a person is wearing at the time’,” the judge said.

“This is simply not consistent with our constitutional values or the law. There is to my mind no distinction to be drawn between the different offices a person holds and their conduct.”

He said Ramathuba had maintained her registration with the HPCSA so she had no right to avoid its jurisdiction. If she had de-registered then the situation would be different.

“Her refusal to accept the finding of the preliminary committee means that the entire matter will serve before a different committee … she will have the opportunity to raise whatever challenge she wishes at the inquiry.

“Delaying the matter unnecessarily ending a review does not serve the interests of any of the parties.”

Judge Millar dismissed the application and ordered Ramathuba to pay the HPCSA’s costs.

Republished from GroundUp under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Source: GroundUp

Categories : Ethics and Law HospitalsTags : 1 Comment

Hospital Association of South Africa Joins Chorus of Criticism Against NHI Bill

On By ModernMedia

The Hospital Association of South Africa (HASA) has added its objections to the proposed National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill to the growing volume of objections from professional medical organisations. In common with them, HASA strongly supports universal health coverage but stands against the NHI Bill in its current form.

Their statement reads: “We believe that approving the Bill without substantive consideration of the many valid and significant recommendations and contributions made by many participants during the Parliamentary hearing is deeply regrettable and a missed opportunity by the Committee.”

Chief among their objections were the potential for corruption and mismanagement in the centralisation of medical funds as well as the many legal objections to the Fund.

Despite serious, credible concerns being raised at every turn, the NHI Bill continues to progress, with Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for Health recently giving the Bill its approval on 26 May, moving it forward to debate within the National Assembly. To support healthcare professionals, Quicknews will be running a series of articles discussing the Bill and providing resources to help them take positive action to protect healthcare services for all of their patients. The Gauteng e-toll saga has already shown that ill-conceived and damaging legislation can be brought down if there is sufficient, coordinated public opposition.

With HASA’s statement, three of the largest medical associations in South Africa have now spoken out against the controversial bill. The South African Medical Association (SAMA) and South African Private Practitioners Forum (SAPPF) have both unequivocally stated their opposition to the Bill as it is currently formulated.

In addition to other risks, South Africa faces a potential exodus of healthcare professionals. Indeed, the UK’s National Health Service has for some time been actively poaching nurses and midwives from lower-income countries like South Africa.

HASA urges National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces in their deliberations on the Bill “to insist on a multi-payer model to mitigate against the concentration of risk, an iterative rollout based on milestones rather than dates and to pay heed to the nation’s concerns that the proposed National Health Insurance Fund is susceptible to theft and corruption by proposing and approving alternate and appropriate governance structures.”

.

Categories : Ethics and LawTags :

HPCSA’s Nationwide Crackdown on Bogus Doctors Continues

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

The Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA) has caught out another individual impersonating a doctor. Mr Tshifata Katembwe, a Congolese national, was practising illegally in Kuruman, Northern Cape while not being accredited with the Council, said spokesperson Christopher Tsatsawane.

According to IOL, since January 2022. Mr Katembwe had been working at a medical practice registered under the name of Dr TK Gopane. This was in in contravention of Section 17(1) of the Health Professions Act, 56 of 1974, said Tsatsawane.

The nationwide crackdown on health-care practitioners operating illegally is gaining momentum with arrests made around the country, Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA) has noted.

Katembwe appeared before the Kuruman Magistrate’s Court last week, and his case was postponed. Meanwhile, Dr Gopane, registered with HPCSA as a medical practitioner, is to be reported to the Medical and Dental Professions Board for appointing an unregistered person and putting unsuspecting members of the public at risk.

In a separate incident, HPCSA announced the arrest of Mr Simba Koromani, an undocumented Zimbabwean national who applied to practise by using the credentials of Dr Lesne Pucjlowski. The doctor notified the HPCSA that someone had tried to apply for a job with her credentials, which led the Council to collaborate with police in tracking down and arresting the fraudster.

Source: IOL

Categories : Ethics and Law GeneticsTags :

‘Errant’ Human DNA can be Found Everywhere, Posing an Ethical Dilemma

On By ModernMedia
Source: Pixabay CC0

Researchers report in Nature Ecology and Evolution that human DNA traces can be found nearly everywhere, short of isolated islands and remote mountaintops. That ubiquity is both a scientific boon and an ethical dilemma, say the University of Florida researchers who sequenced this ‘errant’ DNA. The DNA was of such high quality that the scientists could identify mutations associated with disease and determine the genetic ancestry of nearby populations. They could even match genetic information to individual participants who had volunteered to have their errant DNA recovered.

David Duffy, the UF professor of wildlife disease genomics who led the project, says that ethically handled environmental DNA samples could benefit fields from medicine and environmental science to archaeology and criminal forensics. For example, researchers could track cancer mutations from wastewater or spot undiscovered archaeological sites by checking for hidden human DNA. Or detectives could identify suspects from the DNA floating in the air of a crime scene.

But this level of personal information must be handled extremely carefully. Now, scientists and regulators must grapple with the ethical dilemmas inherent in accidentally — or intentionally — sweeping up human genetic information, not from blood samples but from a scoop of sand, a vial of water or a person’s breath.

The paper by Duffy’s group outlines the relative ease of collecting human DNA nearly everywhere they looked.

“We’ve been consistently surprised throughout this project at how much human DNA we find and the quality of that DNA,” Duffy said. “In most cases the quality is almost equivalent to if you took a sample from a person.”

Because of the ability to potentially identify individuals, the researchers say that ethical guardrails are necessary for this kind of research. The study was conducted with approval from the institutional review board of UF, which ensures that ethical guidelines are adhered to during research studies.

“It’s standard in science to make these sequences publicly available. But that also means if you don’t screen out human information, anyone can come along and harvest this information,” Duffy said. “That raises issues around consent. Do you need to get consent to take those samples? Or institute some controls to remove human information?”

Duffy’s team at UF’s Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience and Sea Turtle Hospital has successfully used environmental DNA, or eDNA, to study endangered sea turtles and the viral cancers they are susceptible to. They’ve plucked useful DNA out of turtle tracks in the sand, greatly accelerating their research program.

The scientists knew that human eDNA would end up in their turtle samples and probably many other places they looked. With modern genetic sequencing technology, it’s now straightforward to sequence the DNA of every organism in an environmental sample. The questions were how much human DNA there would be and whether it was intact enough to harbor useful information.

The team found quality human DNA in the ocean and rivers surrounding the Whitney Lab, both near town and far from human settlement, as well as in sand from isolated beaches. In a test facilitated by the National Park Service, the researchers traveled to part of a remote island never visited by people. It was free of human DNA, as expected. But they were able to retrieve DNA from voluntary participants’ footprints in the sand and could sequence parts of their genomes, with permission from the anonymous participants.

Duffy also tested the technique in his native Ireland. Tracing along a river that winds through town on its way to the ocean, Duffy found human DNA everywhere but the remote mountain stream where the river starts, far from civilization.

The scientists also collected room air samples from a veterinary hospital. They recovered DNA matching the staff, the animal patient and common animal viruses.

Now that it’s clear human eDNA can be readily sampled, Duffy says it’s time for policymakers and scientific communities to take issues around consent and privacy seriously and balance them against the possible benefits of studying this errant DNA.

“Any time we make a technological advance, there are beneficial things that the technology can be used for and concerning things that the technology can be used for. It’s no different here,” Duffy said. “These are issues we are trying to raise early so policy makers and society have time to develop regulations.”

Source: University of Florida

Categories : Ethics and Law Medical IndustryTags :

Did the FDA Break its Own Rules in Approving New Antibiotic?

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Rodion Kutsaiev on Unsplash

In the US, drug approval needs “substantial evidence” of effectiveness – but an investigation by The BMJ into the recent approval of the antibiotic Recarbrio from Merck suggests that these standards are being bypassed.

Recarbrio is a combination therapy made up of a new beta-lactamase inhibitor (relebactam) and a decades old Merck antibiotic (imipenem-cilastatin) to treat complicated infections. It costs $4000–$15 000 for a course, compared with a couple of hundred dollars for the generic version of Merck’s old antibiotic.

Peter Doshi, senior editor at The BMJ, describes how US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists had serious doubts about its highly expensive Recarbrio but the agency approved it anyway.

Did the FDA break its own rules in approving this antibiotic, and what does this case tell us about problems within the agency, he asks? 

In its FDA application, Merck submitted results from two clinical trials comparing Recarbrio with imipenem in adults with complicated urinary tract infections and in patients with complex intra-abdominal infections.

But FDA reviewers noted that Merck had studied the wrong patient population to evaluate the added benefits of the new drug, and said the trial for urinary tract infections showed that Recarbrio was as much as 21% less effective than the older, cheaper imipenem.

The FDA concluded that “these studies are not considered adequate and well-controlled.” And of a third clinical study, the FDA called it a “very small,” “difficult to interpret” “descriptive trial with no pre-specified plans for hypothesis testing.”

Yet despite all three clinical studies not providing substantial evidence of effectiveness, FDA approved Recarbrio.

“Instead of basing its decision on the clinical trials in Merck’s application, FDA’s determination of Recarbrio’s efficacy was justified on past evidence that imipenem was effective, plus – to justify the new relebactam component – in vitro (lab) studies and animal models of infection rather than evidence from human trials as required by law,” writes Doshi.

Others are concerned that Recarbrio’s approval essentially amounts to a return to a way of regulating medicines that the FDA abandoned a half century ago prior to the agency’s “substantial evidence” standard.

Doshi explains that, under specific circumstances, the Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) can waive in whole or in part the FDA’s “adequate and well-controlled studies” approval criteria. But the FDA told The BMJ ”there was no center director memo in the file” for Recarbrio.

And when The BMJ contacted Janet Woodcock, CDER Director at the time, and now the FDA’s Principal Deputy Commissioner, she said she was not aware that clinical studies showed Recarbrio did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness.

Woodcock was also unable to confirm that approvals of new drugs require at least one clinical study of the drug itself that demonstrates substantial evidence – evidence lacking in the case of Recarbrio.

A spokesperson for CDER told The BMJ that FDA “applied regulatory flexibility” in approving Recarbrio. 

It is unclear whether this regulatory flexibility enabled FDA to conclude Recarbrio had met the legal “substantial evidence” standard without “adequate and well-controlled investigations” of Recarbrio, says Doshi. FDA declined to answer the question, saying “We have no additional information to provide.”

The decline of science at the FDA has become unmanageable, argues David Ross, associate clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, and former FDA medical reviewer, in a linked commentary.

He describes Recarbrio’s approval as “shocking” and says while much of the blame must go to the FDA’s reliance on industry paid user fees for around two-thirds of its annual drugs budget, “the corruption of the FDA’s scientific culture remains the primary culprit driving the deterioration of safety and effectiveness standards.”

To address this “dismal situation” he suggests tapering the FDA’s dependence on user fees and improving public access to the information received by the FDA, its reasoning, and its decisions.

“The Recarbrio approval is a sentinel event, warning of a return to an era when drug effectiveness was an afterthought,” argues Ross. “Although the FDA crowed about this approval, it would have been better advised to remember that “for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled,” he concludes.

Source: EurekAlert!

Categories : Cancer Ethics and LawTags :

Zantac Manufacturer Was Aware of Carcinogenic Risks for Decades

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

A Bloomberg investigation has revealed that Glaxo, which went on to form pharmaceutical giant GSK, was aware of the possible carcinogenic content of its popular heartburn drug Zantac for over 40 years.

The once-popular heartburn drug Zantac (ranitidine) was developed in the 1970s by the then-small British pharmaceutical company Glaxo. It was marketed as better and safer than Tagamet (cimetidine) and it soon outsold it and became one of the company’s best-selling drugs.

NDMA belongs to a class of compounds known as nitrosamines, came to light in cancer research when it was found that nitrites could combine with amines in the stomach, giving rise to cancer-causing compounds. This led to calls for restrictions of sodium nitrites, found in various cured foods, but the food industry has resisted this.

This all came to an end in 2019, when Zantac was found to be contaminated by the chemical N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a pale yellow liquid at room temperature. NDMA is a known carcinogen at high concentrations and a possible one at low concentrations. This contamination was not due to a manufacturing error, however: NDMA can form from other reactions and in this case came from within the drug itself. Around the world, Zantac was pulled from shelves, and in 2020 the drug was banned by the FDA. NDMA currently is only produced in small amounts to induce cancer in rats. Whether it is carcinogenic at very low levels is still a matter of debate, but Zantac products contained NDMA at levels which could increase over time.

According to Bloomberg, Glaxo was aware of this, as the possibility of ranitidine being converted in the stomach to nitrosamines being raised in 1980. Tests with human subjects taking ranitidine showed this. Even though NDMA is widely held to be a carcinogen in humans, it is difficult to prove that a particular chemical is responsible for mutations leading to cancers. Glaxo simply took the view that ranitidine did not cause cancer in rodent studies, and that any possible cancer risk was minimised by short exposure. In fact, users would take Zantac for extended periods, even years or decades.

The company was thus warned over 40 years by its own scientists as well as independent researchers, with thousands of pages of documentation seen by Bloomberg for the first time. One 1981 Lancet study showed that Zantac mixed with nitrite in the stomach (as from a meal) would produce nitrosamines. Glaxo scientists countered by saying that the nitrite levels in the study were far above those found in a human stomach, a defence which would become their standard response.

While Glaxo was preparing for FDA approvals in 1982, another study came to their attention. Concerned, Glaxo asked one of their scientists, Richard Tanner, to replicate it and he found that some samples contained 232 000ng of NDMA – the FDA approved limit for each drug was 96ng, though with lower nitrite levels, no NDMA was detected. The daily FDA exposure limit from all sources for NDMA is 190ng, which includes NDMA from all sources, including other medications (which may produce their own NDMA over time) as well as biological processes.

This report would remain secret for more than 40 years. More trouble came from the fact that NDMA could be formed from exposure to either heat or humidity. When it went through the FDA approval process, it did not mention the Tanner report and the notion of storage was glossed over: approved in 150mg doses for eight weeks, storage requirements were listed as a dry place at a temperature no higher than 86°F (30°C).

Zantac surged in popularity, turning the company into a multi-billion dollar enterprise, though the FDA took action over Glaxo’s claims. An over-the-counter 75mg version was launched in 1996. It was coloured pink due to issues of discolouration with white pills turning yellow or brown over time.

While discolouration issues were briefly investigated, it was only in 2019 when there were concerns over NDMA contamination, spurred by recalls of a blood pressure drug, valsartan. A private laboratory warned the FDA over NDMA discovery in Zantac and ranitidine generics, and after the FDA conducted its own tests, the company that was now GSK turned over its documentation.

Within a month, distribution of ranitidine was halted nearly worldwide, and the FDA took the drastic further stop of ordering its production halted. Shortly afterward, the FDA stated that the evidence for NDMA in ranitidine was inconclusive, and clarified that the NDMA concerns were from contamination being produced during its storage, not production in the stomach.

For GSK, the damages from the thousands of plaintiffs may range from US$5 to 17 billion, but damages are likely to be reduced and previous lawsuits of this type have struggled to prove that the relevant compound caused cancer. For Zantac, however, this will be less of an obstacle as NDMA is almost universally accepted as a carcinogen.

Source: Bloomberg

Categories : Ethics and Law HospitalsTags :

FBI Disrupts Cybercrime Group Which Extorted Hospitals

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Nahel Abdul Had on Unsplash

The Hive ransomware group that has targeted more than 1500 victims in over 80 countries around the world, including hospitals, has been disrupted in a months-long campaign against, the US Justice Department has announced.

Hive ransomware attacks have caused major disruptions in victim daily operations around the world and hindered responses to the COVID pandemic. In one case, a hospital attacked by Hive ransomware had to fall back to pen and paper to treat existing patients and could not take new admissions shortly after the attack. 

The Justice Department revealed that the FBI had penetrated Hive’s computer network and captured its decryption keys, which were then offered to victims around the world. This saved them $130 million in ransom they would have had to otherwise pay to get their networks back.

Finally, the department announced that, in coordination with German and Dutch law enforcement, it has seized control of the servers and websites that Hive uses to communicate with its members, disrupting Hive’s ability to attack and extort victims.

Since June 2021, the Hive ransomware group has targeted more than 1500 victims around the world and received over $100 million in ransom payments.  

Hive used a ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) model featuring administrators, and affiliates. RaaS is a subscription-based model where the administrators develop an easy-to-use ransomware strain and then recruit affiliates to deploy the ransomware against victims. Affiliates identified targets and deployed this readymade malicious software to attack victims and then earned a percentage of each successful ransom payment.

Hive actors used a double-extortion model of attack: before encrypting the victim’s system, the affiliate would steal sensitive data. The affiliate then sought a ransom for both the decryption key necessary to decrypt the victim’s system and a promise to not publish the stolen data – usually the most sensitive, such as hospital patient data. After a victim pays, the affiliates and administrators split the ransom 80/20. Victims who do not pay on the Hive Leak Site. After Consulate Health Care was unable to pay the ransom, since its insurance did not cover such cyber crimes, Hive posted 550GB of personally identifiable information on its patients and employees online.

For more information about the malware, including technical information for organisations about how to mitigate its effects, is available from CISA, visit https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ncas/alerts/aa22-321a.

Categories : Ethics and Law General InterestTags :

People Always Strive to See the Good in Villainous Characters

On By ModernMedia
Photo by Stormseeker on Unsplash

From Shakespeare’s Macbeth to Star Wars’ Darth Vader, people love fictional villains. No matter how despicable they may be, audiences are still drawn to the dark side. In fact, according to a new behavioural experiment published in the journal Cognition, both adults and children more often reported that villains were inwardly good than that heroes were inwardly bad.

“In other words, people believe there is a mismatch between a villain’s outward behaviours and their inner, true self, and this is a bigger gap for villains than for heroes,” said study lead author Valerie Umscheid, University of Michigan psychology doctoral student.

Inside, villains are a little less evil than they outwardly seem while heroes are fully good guys inside and out.

Umscheid and colleagues conducted three studies with 434 children (ages 4–12) and 277 adults to determine how individuals make sense of antisocial acts committed by evil-doers. They focused on participants’ judgments of both familiar and novel fictional villains and heroes, such as Disney’s Ursula from The Little Mermaid and Pixar’s Woody from Toy Story.

Study 1 established that children viewed villains’ actions and emotions as overwhelmingly negative. This suggests that children’s well-documented tendency to judge people as good does not prevent their appreciation of extreme forms of villainy.

Studies 2 and 3 assessed children’s and adults’ beliefs regarding heroes’ and villains’ moral character and true selves, using an array of converging evidence, including how a character felt inside, whether a character’s actions reflected their true self and whether a character’s true self could change over time.

Across these measures, the research indicated that both children and adults consistently evaluated villains’ true selves to be overwhelmingly evil and much more negative than heroes’. At the same time, researchers also detected an asymmetry in the judgments, wherein villains were more likely than heroes to have a true self that differed from their outward behaviour.

Both children and adults believed characters like Ursula had some inner goodness, despite the bad/immoral actions they regularly engage in, Umscheid said.

Source: University of Michigan