Clinically and ethically relevant questions are related to patient safety, therapeutic efficacy, equitable access, and global governance over humanity’s genetic legacy.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1079-1088. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1079.
Gene editing reminds professionals and the public that this technology’s reach goes beyond treating somatic disease to germline consequences yet unknown.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1056-1058. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1056.
Tabitha E. H. Moses, MS joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Dr Arash Javanbakht: “How Should Clinicians Determine a Traumatized Patient’s Readiness to Return to Work?”
Dr Alexander Ding joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article, coauthored with Dr Amy B. Cadwallader and other members of the AMA Council on Science and Public Health: “Which Features of Dietary Supplement Industry, Product Trends, and Regulation Deserve Physicians’ Attention?”
Gene editing to enhance humans’ adaptability to climate change should consider safety, harm to be averted, succeeding generations, and social consequences.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1186-1192. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.stas1-1712.
The Holocaust and the racial hygiene doctrine that helped rationalize it still overshadow contemporary debates about using gene editing for disease prevention.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(1):E49-54. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.49.
Research is often conducted without the knowledge or consent of those whose tissues are banked and poses possible harms to social groups if information about a few members is unscientifically applied to all.