Matthew Kucmanic, MA, MPH and Amy R. Sheon, PhD, MPH
Using focus groups to obtain stakeholder feedback can lead to epistemic injustices if the decision-making process is not perceived as procedurally fair.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(11):1073-1080. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.11.ecas1-1711.
Camillo Lamanna, MMathPhil, MBBS and Lauren Byrne, MBBS
Perhaps machine learning systems trained on patients’ electronic health records and social media footprints could be used as decision aids when patients lack capacity or face overwhelming decisions.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E902-910. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.902.
A lack of consensus guidelines or a belief that current evidence does not support such guidelines might be justified if a clinician expresses a commitment to patient-centered care and shared decision making.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1007-1016. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1007.
Nanoscale products pose ethical, legal, and policy challenges to governing the use of products that integrate multiple mechanisms of therapeutic action.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(4):E347-355. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.347.
Michele C. Gornick, PhD, MA and Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, MA
How information is provided can change a choice. Decision science helps reveal affective forecasting errors and can generate choices congruent with patients’ and families’ values.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(10):E906-912. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.906.