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?"
The harms of communicating autism risk can be avoided by helping families to understand risk and to distinguish between poor and good sources of scientific information, which should take families’ interests into account.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(4):323-327. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.4.nlit1-1504.
Because many complementary and alternative medicine therapies for autism are based on misguided notions of its cause and lack support from scientifically sound studies, physicians should steer parents away from these practices and toward safe, effective, and evidence-based interventions.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(4):375-380. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.4.sect2-1504
Forcing parents to participate in treatment is unlikely to succeed. Seeking to optimize the therapeutic alliance between family and pediatrician is more likely to achieve the desired outcome—the child’s short- and long-term well-being.