Misinformation in Public Health Crises

 Misinformation in Public Health Crises

By: Madison Warren

    

    In any public health crisis, accurate communication can mean the difference between life and death. Yet, misinformation spread regardless of intent has increasingly shaped public responses to major crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. From false cures to anti-vaccine, misinformation diminishes public trust, delays effective responses, and often puts the most vulnerable at greater risk. As we've seen, the health consequences go beyond the virus itself; they reflect deeper ethical failures around access, equity, and accountability.

    Misinformation during public health emergencies is not new. During the HIV and AIDS crisis in the 1980s, myths about transmission and stigma around homosexuality contributed to government inaction and mass public fear. However, the scale and speed of misinformation have changed drastically with the rise of social media platforms.

     During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation exploded across platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. A 2021 study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that 65% of anti-vaccine content was tied to just 12 individuals, dubbed the “Disinformation Dozen.” Despite efforts by health agencies and fact-checkers, these narratives often spread faster than official guidance.

Main Ethical and Public Health Concerns

1. Erosion of Public Trust:


Public trust in institutions like the CDC declined during the pandemic, partly due to inconsistent messaging, but also because of competing misinformation. When citizens don’t know who to believe, they may disengage altogether or turn to unqualified influencers. This has serious implications for vaccine uptake, mask compliance, and treatment acceptance.

2. Targeting Marginalized Communities:


Misinformation often preys on communities with historical reasons to distrust the medical system. For example, false claims about COVID-19 vaccine ingredients circulated widely in Black and Hispanic communities, where past abuses like the Tuskegee Study linger in collective memory. Without targeted, respectful outreach, misinformation fills the gap left by slow or absent public health communication.

3. Platform Responsibility and Regulation:


Social media platforms have been slow to act. While some implemented fact checking or removed harmful posts, the profit model of viral engagement encourages sensationalism. The ethical question here is do these companies hold responsibility for health harms when their platforms allow/promote dangerous claims?

    In March 2020, early studies, that were later discredited, suggested that hydroxychloroquine could treat COVID-19. This claim was amplified by public figures and media outlets, despite warnings from scientists and the FDA. As a result, demand surged and some patients with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis lost access to a necessary drug. Later studies showed no benefit and possible harm when used without proper supervision. The damage had already been done, illustrating how misinformation can cause physical harm even before policies catch up.

In Beyond Bioethics, several essays emphasize how unequal access to truth and care often deepens existing inequities. Misinformation acts as another form of inequity. Privileged groups can more easily access accurate medical advice and afford private care, while others are left to navigate countless conflicting messages. The ethical frameworks explored in the text justice, autonomy, and beneficence all apply to the fight against misinformation.

Conclusion

    Misinformation is not just a communication problem, it’s a public health crisis. Governments, medical institutions, and media companies must treat it as such. Stronger regulation of digital platforms, more culturally sensitive public health campaigns, and transparent science communication are essential. Most importantly, we must acknowledge that trust can’t be restored overnight, it must be rebuilt through accountability, listening, and investment in underserved communities.

Primary sources:

https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/health-misinformation/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9421549/

https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/disinformation-and-public-health

Thank you Dr.Oliver and all my peers for a great semester!

Alternative Means for D&Cs (Dilation and Curettage)

Alternative Means for D&Cs (Dilation and Curettage): Tara Taha

Reproductive health has been a hot topic in the United States for decades, with restrictions placed and lifted off in tune with the views of the legislative body’s sentients to the topic. My second presentation focused on NIPTs (Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing) and included the topic of D&C (Dilation and Curettage); however, I think with the political tone that has now latched itself onto abortion, that the focus should be shifted onto D&C.  

The surgical procedure of D&C has been around since the 19th century. It was created in tandem with the first curette (see Figure 1) to address abnormal uterine bleeding and remove tissue of the uterine lining.  

 

 

Figure 1: Sharp curettes Diagnostic Dilation and Curettage 

 

However, my post is not only to educate my peers about the procedure, but also to provide a ground for discussing the ethics of the invasive procedure as a replacement for abortive procedures that were previously available, such as D&E (dilatation and evacuation) and how it has been reserved for only a subsect of women; I say the “ethics” of D&C, not to try to spark a “political discussion” surrounding the support for/against abortions, but rather because it might be utilized, in private, by those same lawmakers who oppose (safer) abortions for all women. 

Previously, D&C was used as a procedure for abortions prior to the passing of Roe v. Wade, and one of the organizations conducting it in that manner was called The Jane Collective (see Figure 2). The Jane Collective was an underground service by the CWLU (Chicago Women’s Liberation Union) that preformed over 11,000 abortive procedures, commonly in the form of a D&C, to (mainly) women who came from low-income backgrounds and women of color who could not afford the trip to New York, where abortion was legal.  It was not an exclusive club who turned down women in need, and surprisingly did not (intentionally) discriminate to those same women. 

 

 

Figure 2: the Jane Collective Advertisement 

 

To learn more about the Jane Collective, I have attached articles and a YouTube video below: 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/23/health/abortion-lessons-jane-wellness/index.html 

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/06/the-janes-hbo-max-review-abortion-roe/661446/ 

https://youtu.be/N7_p69p9kGw?si=bzWqNoY1EK9kqSIn 

I also highly recommend watching The Janes on HBO if you would like to further delve into how abortion was accessible in the form of D&Cs prior to the ruling of Roe v. Wade! 

The use of D&C as an abortive measure for women of color and low-income women would surely carry into the present, right? Unfortunately, it has become quite the opposite. D&Cs have become a thing of the past as a procedure for abortion and has reverted to its original use of addressing miscarriages, abnormal uterine bleeding, and the removal of tissue of pregnant or non-pregnant women. It is even one of the most common invasive procedures performed. With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many procedures relating to reproductive health, such as D&E, have been made illegal in many states. This means access to abortion has been completely halted and barred, for some. So, who gets the pass to such a procedure? Wealthy, often white, women are the exception to this, with treatments and procedures carried out under the cloak of D&Cs.  

Wealthy women can have a pregnancy terminated behind the private, tight-lipped offices of an OB-GYN, permitting they are able to afford such silence. D&Cs are commonly carried out, because of the fact that they can be classified as a procedure for health and not listed as an abortive procedure. Not only that, but D&Cs and D&Es are procedurally the same, with the exception of the method used to remove tissue (scraping vs. suctioning).  

Poor women, often of color, are criminalized for abortions, while these wealthy white women are able to skirt around the restrictive laws and pay their way to appear “lawful.” This brings up an ethical dilemma that quickly needs to be addressed: is it fair to carry out D&Cs, even if it is only available for only a sub-sect of privileged women? Surely it would be worse to deny ALL women of the procedure for the means of an abortion?  

Of course, the answer is that all women should be able to have access to the safest means of reproductive care, procedures, and abortive measures. But in our current political climate, it seems this answer will only be achieved once the bipartisan demographic in the three branches of government is shifted back to a party that supports reproductive health. So how do we tackle this dilemma now? We must first knowledge the messy truth of who abortions is available to. It is clear that the bills restricting abortion are meant to criminalize those who do not have the financial means to disguise the procedure. As long as profit is the motive of these OB-GYN offices, safe D&Cs cannot be performed for everyone, regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds.  

Who exactly gets to dictate what is a legitimate procedure and what is not? Lawmakers, of course. Attacks on the procedure of D&Cs have been halted for the time being out of the blue, in states like Texas and Montana. Supposedly, it was dropped as a result of public backlash, but it could be because these lawmakers who support these restrictive bills, realize that their wives, or mistresses, still need a way to terminate a pregnancy that they do not want the women to carry out, for the sake of reputation and being seen as a hypocrite.  

To learn more about the D&C procedure, as well as the restrictions imposed, articles are attached below for your convenience: 

 https://www.propublica.org/article/miscarriage-abortion-bans-dilation-and-curettage-dilation-and-evacuation 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568791/ 

Of course, it is very hard to find data to indicate the amount of D&Cs that are performed for the sake of an abortion, rather than a miscarriage or for non-pregnant women. This is because, of course, the initial attraction to such a procedure is because it is not disclosed what exactly has been removed, and filed under general health categories, rather than abortive means to the state. Because of its private nature, the discussion around D&Cs are a form of abortion can be a curse or a blessing to the cause of reproductive health. On one hand, if it was available to all women, and not hidden behind a paywall, it could be extremely beneficial and accessible to those living in this current political climate, who want a safe abortion. But if this cause is found out, then the procedure, as a whole, might be banned, and this would be a detriment to anyone, even non-pregnant women, who need the procedure for the “original” means. Women and healthcare workers around the country must be wary, and cautious when approaching alternative means to reproductive health; you never know what surgery or healthcare could be attacked and restricted next.