When a seriously ill mature minor and his parent disagree about his receiving an experimental intervention, who should decide what treatment he will receive?
The belief persists that patient satisfaction surveys are more responsive to friendliness and expensive facilities than clinician interaction, but there is evidence to the contrary.
Publicizing physician ordering information as a way of peer-pressuring hospital employees into cutting costs is likely to have unintended consequences.
Movements to deinstitutionalize people with mental illness and to make institutionalization more legally difficult have resulted in a lack of space and resources for the care of those with severe mental illness, and many have ended up in jails and prisons.
When a patient requests an unfamiliar treatment, the physician should not hesitate to research it before giving a categorical reply about its safety or efficacy.
Matthew William McCarthy, MD and Joseph J. Fins, MD
Hospital medicine must expand its mission to include the teaching of medical ethics, professionalism, and communication to trainees during clinical rounds.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(6):528-532. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.6.peer2-1706.
Laurel J. Lyckholm, MD and Arwa K. Aburizik, MD, MS
Decision-making capacity can be preserved in patients with mental illness and should be formally assessed in the context of their values and past decisions.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(5):444-453. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.5.ecas4-1705.
The phrase “I take Lipitor instead of a generic” was embedded in the public consciousness through an advertising campaign that featured Robert Jarvik, credited with the invention of the artificial heart.
Deciding whether to recommend Avastin or Lucentis raises ethical issues. Should the public health consequences of using a far more expensive drug trump what the doctor thinks is best for the individual patient?