Using crowdsourced information in health professions education can help motivate critical appraisal, question asking, and evidence evaluation skill development, especially among “digital natives.”
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1033-1040. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1033.
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.
Prevention efforts can marginalize patients by stigmatizing certain behaviors, so distinguishing individual professionals’ preferences about those behaviors is critical.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(6):E536-539. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.536.
Sara Silbert, MD, Gregory A. Yanik, MD, and Andrew G. Shuman, MD
“Living” drugs target specific B-cell malignancy tumor antigens, but cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Value analysis can help determine whether to offer these customized drugs.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(10):E844-851. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.844.
Heather J. Logghe, MD, Tyler Rouse, MD, Alec Beekley, MD, and Rajesh Aggarwal, MD, PhD
Modern surgeons are diverse, socially adept, and differ in other important ways from the stereotype of a technically gifted white male with poor bedside manner.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(5):492-500. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.5.mhst1-1805.
The DSM-5 Task Force’s handling of the ethical controversy over the bereavement exclusion demonstrates the need for more inclusive deliberative processes.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(2):192-198. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.pfor2-1702.