Peter H. Schwartz, MD, PhD: People: Center for Bioethics: Indiana University

Home
People
Peter H. Schwartz, MD, PhD

Peter H. Schwartz, MD, PhD

Director, Indiana University Center for Bioethics
Professor of Medicine and Professor of Bioethics, Indiana University School of Medicine
Director, Bioethics and Subject Advocacy Program, Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CTSI)
Professor of Philosophy, Indiana University – Purdue University, Indianapolis

Phone:: (317) 278-4037
Email:: phschwar@iu.edu

Bio:

Dr. Schwartz is Director of the Indiana University Center for Bioethics, and Professor of Medicine and Professor of Bioethics at IU School of Medicine. He is Professor of Philosophy at the IU School of Liberal Arts at Indiana University Indianapolis (IUI). He directs the Bioethics and Participant Advocacy Program of the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CTSI). Dr. Schwartz practices adult outpatient medicine in the Eskenazi Health System.

Dr. Schwartz received his B.A. from Harvard College and his M.D. and Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania. He completed his residency in Internal Medicine at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, MA.

Dr. Schwartz has conducted research and written on ethical issues in many areas including informed consent, risk communication, electronic health information, opiates, and ideas of health, disease, and risk. He leads research projects on patient decision-making and risk communication in preventive and precision healthcare, with funding from the American Cancer Society and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute. He is currently the principal investigator of a project examining the impact of providing personalized risk information to patients due for colorectal cancer screening, and to their providers, funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

Teaching:

Selected Courses:

Philosophy Department, IUI: P393/547 - Biomedical Ethics / Foundations of Bioethics
Philosophy Department, IUI: P383/696 - Ethics, Autonomy, and Consent
School of Medicine, IUI: G506 - Responsible Conduct of Translational Research
School of Medicine, IUI: 937P700 - Medical Ethics and Professionalism

Selected Guest Lectures:

“Return Research Findings to Participants,” and “Collaborative Research with Industry” - GRDM-G504 – Introduction to Research Ethics, IUI
“Autonomy and Respect for Persons,” Foundations of Clinical Practice, Year 1, IU School of Medicine
“Genetic Engineering and Enhancement,” Medical Ethics and Professionalism elective, Year 4, IU School of Medicine

Research:

Research Interests:

Ethical issues in shared decision-making and risk communication
Design and evaluation of patient decision aids in colorectal cancer screening and other areas
Ethics and patient engagement in precision medicine and genetics, esp. pharmacogenomics
Biobank consent and governance
Defining and using concepts of function, dysfunction, risk, and disease in bioethics and healthcare

Recent Publications:

Doyle TA, Schmidt KK, Halverson CME, Olivera J, Garcia A, Shugg TA, Skaar TC, Schwartz PH. Patient Understanding of Pharmacogenomic Test Results in Clinical Care. Patient Education and Counseling. 2023.
Schwartz PH, Sachs G. Rethinking Decision Quality: Measurement, Meaning, and Bioethics. Hastings Center Report. 2022.
Schwartz PH. The Framing Dilemma: Quantitative Information, Shared Decision Making, and Nudging. Medical Decision Making. 2022.

Other Selected Publications:

Schwartz PH, O’Doherty KC, Bentley C, Schmidt KK, Burgess MM. Layperson Views About the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids about Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Public Deliberation. Medical Decision Making. 2021.
Schwartz PH, Imperiale TF, Perkins SM, Schmidt KK, Althouse S, Rawl SM. Impact of Including Quantitative Information in a Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Patient Education and Counseling. 2019.

Selected Publications by Topic:

Doyle TA, Schmidt KK, Halverson CME, Olivera J, Garcia A, Shugg TA, Skaar TC, Schwartz PH. Patient Understanding of Pharmacogenomic Test Results in Clinical Care. Patient Education and Counseling. 2023.
Halverson CME, Pratt VM, Skaar TC, Schwartz PH. Ending the Pharmacogenomic Gag Rule: The Imperative to Report All Results. Pharmacogenomics. 2021.
Kasperbauer TJ, Schwartz PH. Genetic Data Aren’t So Special: Causes and Implications of Re-identification. Hastings Center Report. 2020.

Schwartz PH, Sachs G. Rethinking Decision Quality: Measurement, Meaning, and Bioethics. Hastings Center Report. 2022.
Schwartz PH. Placebos, Full disclosure, and Trust: The Risks and Benefits of Disclosing Risks and Benefits. American Journal of Bioethics. 2015.
Schwartz PH. Silence About Screening. American Journal of Bioethics. 2007.

Rager JB, Althouse S, Perkins SM, Schmidt KK, Schwartz PH.Measuring the Impact of Quantitative Information on Patient Understanding: Approaches for Assessing the Adequacy of Patient Knowledge about Colorectal Cancer Screening. Medical Decision Making Policy & Practice. 2022.
Schwartz PH, O’Doherty KC, Bentley C, Schmidt KK, Burgess MM. Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids about Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Public Deliberation. Medical Decision Making. July 2021.
Schwartz PH, Imperiale TF, Perkins SM, Schmidt KK, Althouse S, Rawl SM. Impact of Including Quantitative Information in a Decision Aid for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Patient Education and Counseling. 2019.
Schwartz PH, Perkins SM, Schmidt KK, Muriello PF, Althouse S, Rawl SM. Providing Quantitative Information and a Nudge to Undergo Stool Testing in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid. Med Decision Making. 2017.
Schwartz PH, Edenberg E, Barrett PR, Perkins SM, Meslin EM, Imperiale TF. Patient Understanding of Benefits, Risks, and Alternatives to Screening Colonoscopy. Family Medicine. 2013.

Kasperbauer TJ, Halverson CME, Garcia A, Schwartz PH. Biobank Participants’ Attitudes Toward Data Sharing and Privacy: The Role of Trust in Reducing Perceived Risks. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2022.
Kasperbauer TJ, Waltz A, Hawryluk B, Moore C, Schmidt KK, Schwartz PH. Collecting Biospecimens and Obtaining Biobank Consent from Patients in a Healthcare Setting: Practical and Ethical Considerations. Academic Medicine. 2022.
Kasperbauer TJ, Halverson C, Garcia Sierra A, Schmidt KK, Schwartz, PH. Biobank Participants’ Attitudes Toward Requiring Understanding for Biobank Consent. Ethics & Human Research. 2022.
Kasperbauer TJ, Schmidt KK, Thomas A, Perkins SM, Schwartz PH. Incorporating Biobank Consent into a Healthcare Setting: Challenges for Patient Understanding. AJOB Empirical Bioethics. 2021.

Schwartz PH. Comparative risk: Good or bad heuristic? American Journal of Bioethics. 2016.
Schwartz PH. Do the numbers help patients decide? Ethical and empirical challenges for evaluating the impact of quantitative information. In Numerical Reasoning in Judgments and Decision Making about Health, eds. B.L. Anderson and J. Schulkin, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 2014. pp. 252-280.
Schwartz PH. "Child safety, absolute risk, and the prevention paradox,” Hastings Center Report. July-Aug 2012.
Schwartz PH. Discounting a surgical risk: Data, understanding, and gist. [Case Commentary] Virtual Mentor: American Medical Association Journal of Ethics, July 2012; 14(7): 532-538. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2012.14.7.ecas1-1207 URL: http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2012/07/ecas1-1207.html
Schwartz PH. Questioning the quantitative imperative: Decision aids, prevention, and the ethics of disclosure. Hastings Center Report 2011; 41(2): 30-39. doi: 10.1353/hcr.2011.0029 URL: https://core.ac.uk/reader/46958726?utm_source=linkout
Schwartz PH. Disclosure and rationality: Comparative risk information and decision-making about prevention. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2009; 30(3): 199-213. doi:10.1007/s11017-009-9111-7. URL: https://scholarworks.indianapolis.iu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/bdcd71c6-5328-4e86-8028-0ae290449dcd/content
Schwartz PH, Meslin EM. The ethics of information: Absolute risk reduction and patient understanding of screening. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2008; 23(6): 867-870. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0616-y URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517883/pdf/11606_2008_Article_616.pdf

Meslin EM, Alpert SA, Carroll AE, Odell JD, Tierney, WM, Schwartz PH. Giving patients granular control of personal health information: Using an ethics ‘Points to Consider’ to inform informatics system designers. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2013; 82: 1136-1143. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.08.010 URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505613001895?via%3Dihub
Tierney WM, Alpert SA, Byrket A, Caine K, Leventhal JC, Meslin EM, Schwartz PH. Provider responses to patients controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015; 30 (Suppl 1): S31–7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-3053-0 URL: https://scholarworks.indianapolis.iu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/a3c19aa7-48c9-4017-8d14-4d51fda3a7a2/content
Schwartz PH, Caine K, Alpert SA, Meslin EM, Carroll AE, Tierney WM. Patient preferences to control access to their electronic health records in a prospective cohort study in primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015; 30 (Suppl 1): S25-30. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-3054-z URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4265220/
Meslin EM, Schwartz PH. How bioethics principles can aid design of electronic health records to accommodate patient granular control. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015; 30 (Suppl 1): S3-6. doi:10.1007/s11606-014-3062-z. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4265222/

Meslin EM, Alpert SA, Carroll AE, Odell JD, Tierney, WM, Schwartz PH. Giving patients granular control of personal health information: Using an ethics ‘Points to Consider’ to inform informatics system designers. International Journal of Medical Informatics 2013; 82: 1136-1143. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.08.010 URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505613001895?via%3Dihub
Tierney WM, Alpert SA, Byrket A, Caine K, Leventhal JC, Meslin EM, Schwartz PH. Provider responses to patients controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015; 30 (Suppl 1): S31–7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-3053-0 URL: https://scholarworks.indianapolis.iu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/a3c19aa7-48c9-4017-8d14-4d51fda3a7a2/content
Schwartz PH, Caine K, Alpert SA, Meslin EM, Carroll AE, Tierney WM. Patient preferences to control access to their electronic health records in a prospective cohort study in primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015; 30 (Suppl 1): S25-30. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-3054-z URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4265220/
Meslin EM, Schwartz PH. How bioethics principles can aid design of electronic health records to accommodate patient granular control. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2015; 30 (Suppl 1): S3-6. doi:10.1007/s11606-014-3062-z. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4265222/

Schwartz PH. Small tumors as risk factors not disease. In Philosophy of Science Supplement (Proceedings of the 2012 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Assocation: Part II: Symposia Papers). URL: https://scholarworks.indianapolis.iu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d1b4962a-eeb1-436d-875e-1b69d8e876a5/content
Schwartz PH. Risk and disease. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 2008; 51(3): 320–34. URL: https://scholarworks.indianapolis.iu.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/3008140a-73b6-4540-8942-cb92f670fb6c/content

Waltz A, Johnson B, Schwartz PH. Clarifying and limiting responsibilities: Guidelines for investigators and the IRB on return of clinically relevant research results to participants. Ethics & Human Research (In press). Accepted May 2023.
Schwartz PH, Hartsock JA. Selling clinical biospecimens: Guidance for researchers and private industry. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics (in press). Accepted April 2022.
Rager JB, Schwartz PH, Defending opioid treatment agreements: Disclosure, not promises. Hastings Center Report 2017; 47(3): 24-33. doi:10.1002/hast.702 URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.702

*· Schwartz PH. Broadening and balancing the goals of medicine: Battling disease and treating the healthy. Naturalism in philosophy of health, ed. E. Giroux. Springer. 2016. pp. 199-208.

Schwartz PH. Defending the distinction between treatment and enhancement. American Journal of Bioethics 2005; 5 (3): 17-19. doi: 10.1080/15265160591002755 URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15265160591002755?journalCode=uajb20

Additional Publications: PubMed

Funding:

Selected Grants:

Screening in Primary Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Challenges, Responses, and Implementation (PI)

PCORI, 11/01/2020 – 01/31/2022, ($309,000)

To identify barriers, responses, and facilitators for cancer screening (breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung) during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on interviews of leadership, providers, staff, and patients at primary care clinics at IU Health and Eskenazi.

Measuring the Impact of Providing Personalized Risk Information to Patients and their Providers on Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions and Uptake (PI)

PCORI, 11/01/2019 – 02/29/2024, ($2,800,000)

To test whether providing patients and their providers with personalized messages about the patient’s risk of colorectal cancer increases screening uptake and decision quality, and to identify facilitators and barriers to using this and other approaches to improving colorectal cancer screening.

Assessing the Return of Pharmacogenomic Results to Patients in the ADOPT Trial (Co-I)

NIH/ NHGRI, 09/01/2021 – 12/31/2023, ($158,489)

Supplement to “Implementing Genomic Medicine Through Pragmatic Trials in Diverse and Underserved Populations across Indiana” (5U01HG010245): To study understanding of pharmacogenomics test results by patients in the ADOPT trial (A Depression and Opioid Pragmatic Trial in Pharmacogenetics), part of NHGRI’s Implementing Genomics in Practice (IGNITE) network.