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.
Lyubov Slashcheva, Rick Rader, MD, and Stephen B. Sulkes, MD
Designation of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities as a medically underserved population would not solve problems of access to care.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(4):422-429. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.pfor1-1604.
Clinicians with obligations to patients and to organizations often assess patients in law enforcement for both therapeutic and nontherapeutic purposes.
AMA J Ethics. 2022;24(2):E111-119. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2022.111.
Charles E. Binkley, MD, Michael S. Politz, MA, and Brian P. Green, PhD
If the safe-and-effective standard for judging devices’ potential as therapy or enhancement is inadequate, one might wonder whether BCI regulation should be overseen by the FDA.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(9):E745-749. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.745.
Dr Charles Binkley joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article, coauthored with Michael Politz and Dr Brian Green: "Who, If Not the FDA, Should Regulate Implantable Brain-Computer Interface Devices?"
Transitions in relabeling personalized medicine as precision medicine, precision health, or wellness genomics reflect shifting the locus of responsibility for health from individuals to clinicians and in shifting focus from genetic risk to genetic enhancement.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E881-890. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.881.