The Holocaust and the racial hygiene doctrine that helped rationalize it still overshadow contemporary debates about using gene editing for disease prevention.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(1):E49-54. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.49.
Financial relationships are common, and ethical questions rightly emerge about how conflicts of interest compromise investigators’ approaches to research.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(9):E685-691. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.685.
Most women requesting pregnancy termination have already decided to undergo an abortion, but some jurisdictions have implemented strategies to induce doubt and regret.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(9):E792-795. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.792.
Professional society guidelines can be used to set standards for clinical practice instead of government. This approach could help if federal or state policymakers view discarding embryos as ethically equivalent to abortion.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(12):E1160-1167. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1160.
Clinically and ethically relevant questions are related to patient safety, therapeutic efficacy, equitable access, and global governance over humanity’s genetic legacy.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1079-1088. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1079.
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.
Distinguishing between elective and therapeutic abortions undermines the moral agency of patients and disproportionately amplifies moral rather than medical dimensions of the procedure.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(12):E1175-1180. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1175.