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.
Financial relationships are common, and ethical questions rightly emerge about how conflicts of interest compromise investigators’ approaches to research.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(9):E685-691. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.685.
Most women requesting pregnancy termination have already decided to undergo an abortion, but some jurisdictions have implemented strategies to induce doubt and regret.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(9):E792-795. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.792.
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.
Distinguishing between elective and therapeutic abortions undermines the moral agency of patients and disproportionately amplifies moral rather than medical dimensions of the procedure.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(12):E1175-1180. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1175.
Physicians should provide women considering abortion after Down syndrome screening with unbiased information and not attempt to influence their decision.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(4):359-364. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.ecas1-1604.