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.
International debate about human genome editing governance has undergone a paradigm shift and suggests that inclusive public deliberation is still important.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1065-1070. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1065.
Medical students’ moral distress about end-of-life cases can be reduced through ethics consultation and ethics rounds, narrative reflection, and mentoring.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(6):585-594. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.6.stas1-1706.
The convening power of clinical ethics committees stems from their reputation for fairness and procedural legitimacy in addressing and resolving ethically complex cases.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(5):540-545. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.5.msoc2-1605.
Despite challenges of decision making for unrepresented patients, few laws or policy statements offer solutions. This article offers 5 key things to do.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(7):E582-586. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.582.
Physicians, committees, and guardians all make decisions for unrepresented patients in the US. This article considers a “tiered” approach as an alternative.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(7):E587-593. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.587.
When patients are unable to express their wishes and do not have surrogates or advance directives, which and whose values should inform decision making for them? We discuss ethical complexities of caring for unrepresented patients.