By virtue of their education and expertise, physicians have a responsibility to challenge scientifically inaccurate information about sexual health, but they may not opine about sexual norms for society in their professional capacity.
Physicians have a duty to educate lawmakers and the public about misinformation but they should not advocate for specific policies and thereby foreclose social dialogue on issues related to public health.
Both bans on unhealthful foods and warning label requirements face strong legal opposition from industry and ignite furious public debate about the role and limits of government intervention in American lifestyles.
Julian Savulescu's writing on conscientious objection is guided by an emphasis on the principle of distributive justice that does not allow religion to have a special status as justification.
Doctors and hospitals must stop being bystanders to food-related illness and begin to become role models and educators in the transition to healthful eating habits, just as they did in tobacco cessation.
Until healthful food is widely affordable and accessible to all people, any discussions of how policy might infringe on the right to choose may be misguided.
Jalayne J. Arias, JD, MA and Kathryn L. Weise, MD, MA
Even when external factors such as nonaccidental injury weigh heavily on clinicians' perceptions, they should not lose focus on the patient's best interest when deciding whether to continue or withdraw treatment.
Lynn Monrouxe, PhD, Malissa Shaw, MSc, PhD, and Charlotte Rees, MEd, PhD
Students’ decision making about ethical dilemmas can be supported via education, faculty development, and structures for reporting professionalism lapses.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(6):568-577. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.6.medu1-1706.
Monica Peek, MD, MPH, MSc, Bernard Lo, MD, and Alicia Fernandez, MD
Gender-concordant care requests involve principles of beneficence, respect, and fairness and, when they occur on rotations, require a team-based approach.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(4):332-339. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.4.ecas2-1704.