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.
Editor in chief, Dr Audiey Kao, talks with Dr Matthew Wynia about allocation of critical care resources and clinicians' duty to show up to work during public health emergencies.
Carmel Shachar, JD, MPH and Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, LLB, PhD
Legal approaches to preserving social stability, maintaining trust, supporting therapeutic research opportunities, or diminishing disease severity deserve ethical scrutiny.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(1):E36-42. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.36.
Being close enough to patients to care is as critical as remaining distant enough from a pathogen to be safe. This strategy simultaneously frustrates and supports public trust.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(1):E22-27. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.22.
How would gathering preclinical data and improving research infrastructure facilitate clearer definitions of “population vulnerability” and “risk acceptability”?
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(1):E43-49. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.43.