The Holocaust and the racial hygiene doctrine that helped rationalize it still overshadow contemporary debates about using gene editing for disease prevention.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(1):E49-54. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.49.
Alden M. Landry, MD, MPH, Rose L. Molina, MD, MPH, Regan Marsh, MD, MPH, Emma Hartswick, Raquel Sofia Sandoval, Nora Osman, MD, and Leonor Fernandez, MD
Adapting content in response to new science is common, but educators can struggle to offer current questions that matter to students.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(2):E127-131. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.127.
Clinicians can practice disability humility by developing social understandings of disability. This can help clinicians improve communication and express respect for patients’ authority about their experiences.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(12):E1181-1187. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1181
Clinically and ethically relevant questions are related to patient safety, therapeutic efficacy, equitable access, and global governance over humanity’s genetic legacy.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1079-1088. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1079.
Gene editing reminds professionals and the public that this technology’s reach goes beyond treating somatic disease to germline consequences yet unknown.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1056-1058. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1056.