Physicians’ ethical obligation to ensure communities’ access to safe drinking water has roots in their expertise, social authority, and role as mediators.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(10):1027-1035. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.10.pfor1-1710.
Physician advocacy for climate change mitigation is justified by seven criteria including physicians’ efficacy, expertise, public trust, and proximity.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1202-1210. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.msoc1-1712.
Climate change mitigation reforms of government policy, medical curricula, and health professions organizations should be the focus of physician advocacy.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1222-1237. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.sect1-1712.
The adverse health effects of climate change should be the focus of physician advocacy efforts and of conversations between physicians and their patients.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1174-1182. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.ecas3-1712.
Public health and climate stabilization historically have competed for public funds, but investment in either good has the potential to advance both goods.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1193-1201. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.pfor1-1712.
The AAP’s guidelines on lipid screening for children raise concerns about the fundamental purpose of prevention and its role in balancing individual autonomy with the benefits of society at large.
Given the well-established correlation across cultures between poverty and unhealthy lifestyles, can it be just to hold individuals responsible for choices typical of their socioeconomic sector? Aren’t patient-responsibility programs simply conspiracies to shrink benefits to the poor?