Physician advocacy for climate change mitigation is justified by seven criteria including physicians’ efficacy, expertise, public trust, and proximity.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1202-1210. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.msoc1-1712.
Climate change mitigation reforms of government policy, medical curricula, and health professions organizations should be the focus of physician advocacy.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1222-1237. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.sect1-1712.
Should a family’s ability to afford follow-up care for a child who needs “miracle surgery” play a role in the physician’s decision to operate? Would the answer change depending on the patient’s immigration status?
The adverse health effects of climate change should be the focus of physician advocacy efforts and of conversations between physicians and their patients.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1174-1182. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.ecas3-1712.
Although physicians do not have legitimate authority over patients, professional associations may have such authority over physicians, even nonmembers.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(2):207-213. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.sect1-1702.
Although sharing health records with psychiatric patients may cause harm, clinicians also must consider beneficence and autonomy in making this decision.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(3):253-259. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.3.ecas3-1703.
Pharmacologic interventions might help physicians overcome cognitive deficits resulting from loss of sleep while on call or help them retain more details about the patients under their care.