Madison L. Esposito and Michelle Kahn-John, PhD, RN
Most clinicians receive little training in integrating Native healing into allopathic practice, which undermines patients’ autonomy and cultural values.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(10):E837-844. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.837.
Matthew Kucmanic, MA, MPH and Amy R. Sheon, PhD, MPH
Using focus groups to obtain stakeholder feedback can lead to epistemic injustices if the decision-making process is not perceived as procedurally fair.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(11):1073-1080. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.ecas1-1711.
This commentary on a case considers a transgender patient’s mental health and risk for DVT in ethical decision making about feminizing gender-affirming hormone therapy.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(6):E386-390. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.386.
Lee C. Zhao, MD, Gaines Blasdel, Augustus Parker, and Rachel Bluebond-Langner, MD
Tension between realistic goals and unrealistic views about how to achieve them is compounded when patients are eager to revise a prior surgeon’s gender-affirming procedure.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(6):E391-397. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.391.
Zareen Zaidi, MD, PhD, Daniele Ölveczky, MD, MS, Nicole A. Perez, PhD, Paolo C. Martin, PhD, Andres Fernandez, MD, MSEd, Philicia Duncan, MD, and Hannah L. Anderson, MBA
This article canvasses ways to help trainees cultivate discernment and action in response to inequity.
AMA J Ethics. 2024;26(1):E12-20. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2024.12.
Clinicians can support shared decision making by assessing patients’ knowledge, eligibility for screening, and preferences for engagement—active, collaborative, or passive—in the decision making process.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(7):601-607. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.7.ecas1-1507.
The physician must help patients understand that all options—further testing, surgery, no action—carry risks and benefits. Disclosing the statistical probability of injury and other possible outcomes might help, but it can also hinder the process.