False health information can harm, so hosts and writers of website content, clinicians, and patients are all responsible for jointly appraising the quality of online content and preventing the spread of misinformation.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1059-1066. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1059.
Efrat Lelkes, MD, Angira Patel, MD, MPH, Anna Joong, MD, and Jeffrey G. Gossett, MD
Current policy requires separate informed consent for some Public Health Service increased-risk donors, and this can make shared decision making harder.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(5):E401-407. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.401.
Daphne C. Ferrer, MD and Peter M. Yellowlees, MBBS, MD
Telepsychiatry extends access to psychiatric treatment to those who might not otherwise get it, but licensure problems and the risk of boundary violations between patients and physicians need to be worked out.
Qualifying conscience protections for institutions with requirements that they minimize hardship caused to the patient would prevent religious institutions from acting as a choke point on the path to services.
If employees of religious institutions whose consciences conflict with those of their employers were to be granted legal protection for positive claims of conscience, the religious freedom of institutions within which they work would be gravely compromised.
The Department of Health and Human Service's decision to include a religious exemption to its requirement that private health plans cover contraception without patient cost-sharing raises questions about whether such an exemption appropriately balances the needs, beliefs, rights, and obligations of all affected.
With good planning and good will, medical professionals’ right of conscience and patients’ rights to controversial services can be both protected and accommodated.