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.
False health information can harm, so hosts and writers of website content, clinicians, and patients are all responsible for jointly appraising the quality of online content and preventing the spread of misinformation.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1059-1066. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1059.
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.
Wandy D. Hernandez-Gordon, CD(DONA), BDT(DONA), CLC, CCE(ACBE)
CHWs’ work underscores need for clinicians and organizations to respond to deeply entrenched, long-standing patterns of oppression in ways that draw upon lived experience.
AMA J Ethics. 2022;24(4):E333-339. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2022.333.
On this episode of Ethics Talk, Zahra H. Khan, Yoshiko Iwai, and Dr Sayantani DasGupta outline how “abolition medicine” can motivate critical responses to medicine’s expressions of hyper-punitive, deeply racialized exercises of state authority.