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.
Lindsey E. Carlasare joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Dr Gerald B. Hickson: “Whose Responsibility Is It to Address Bullying in Health Care?”
Farmworkers can become ill due to toxic exposure in their work environments. Recommending specific restrictions, educating patients on protection strategies, and partnering with agribusiness owners and allied health workers can drive development of alternatives to agricultural practices with health risks.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(10):E932-940. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.932.
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.