Countering the prevailing thought that more medical testing and treatment is always better can be achieved by creating a forum for open discussion of costs and value to prevent patient harm from overuse.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(11):1079-1081. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.11.mnar1-1511.
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.
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.
Dr Dónal O’Mathúna joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article, coauthored with Dr Nawaraj Upadhaya: “Should Children Be Enrolled in Clinical Research in Conflict Zones?”
When confidential medical information can prevent a serious harm to a third party, the patient’s prima facie right to confidentiality must be balanced against the physician’s prima facie obligation to prevent serious harm to that third party.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(9):819-825. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.9.ecas1-1509.