Gene editing reminds professionals and the public that this technology’s reach goes beyond treating somatic disease to germline consequences yet unknown.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1056-1058. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1056.
International debate about human genome editing governance has undergone a paradigm shift and suggests that inclusive public deliberation is still important.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1065-1070. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1065.
A guardian’s request to sterilize a woman with intellectual disabilities is not ethically justifiable unless the woman assents and it is to her benefit.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(4):365-372. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.ecas2-1604.
How would gathering preclinical data and improving research infrastructure facilitate clearer definitions of “population vulnerability” and “risk acceptability”?
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(1):E43-49. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.43.
Aminu Yakubu, Nchangwi Syntia Munung, and Jantina De Vries, PhD
African cancer research is embedded in underresourced health care infrastructures, illuminating ethical questions about benefit sharing and governance.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(2):E156-163. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.156.
Clinicians in Catholic health care institutions cannot prescribe contraceptives for pregnancy prevention under a false diagnosis without committing fraud and contravening doctrine. Referrals are one option the authors consider for navigating patient requests for contraception.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(7):E630-636. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.630.