A history of device oversight by the US Food and Drug Administration traces regulatory changes in response to injuries caused by Dalkon Shield intrauterine devices.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(9):E712-720. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.712.
Deborah M. Eng, MS, MA and Scott J. Schweikart, JD, MBE
A just culture perspective suggests that punitive responses to those who err should be reserved for those who have willfully and irremediably caused harm.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(9):E779-783. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.779.
Joel T. Wu, JD, MPH, MA and Jennifer B. McCormick, PhD, MPP
False health-related speech can cause harm, but it’s not restricted unless it’s obscene. Physicians are obliged not only to correct patients’ false beliefs, but to engage digital spaces in which false claims thrive.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1052-1058. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1052.
Government can regulate false speech and professional speech, which bans “gag laws” and compelled speech about laws to restrict abortion, for example. How should health professions share regulatory responsibility with government to prevent true speech about health information from being stifled?
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1041-1048. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1041.
Two pediatric cases highlight risks of prolonging anesthetic exposure for training purposes and prompt questions about influences of surgical training on outcomes.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(4):E267-275. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.267.