Michael McKee, MD, MPH, Ben Case, Maureen Fausone, Philip Zazove, MD, MM, Alicia Ouellette, JD, and Michael D. Fetters, MD, MPH, MA
For reasons of medical ethics, medical schools should embrace functional technical standards that focus on the capabilities of students with disabilities.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(10):993-1002. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.10.medu1-1610.
Gene editing to enhance humans’ adaptability to climate change should consider safety, harm to be averted, succeeding generations, and social consequences.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(12):1186-1192. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.12.stas1-1712.
The question of whether and how results from personal genetic testing will motivate behavioral changes in consumers has only begun to receive the research attention it richly deserves.
The law and medical ethics demand reconsideration of inflexible technical standards that are vulnerable to litigation under disability discrimination laws.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(10):1010-1016. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.10.hlaw1-1610.
Lisa M. Meeks, PhD and Christopher Moreland, MD, MPH
Obstacles for applicants with disabilities illuminate admission practices that could help craft a clinical workforce that is appropriately diverse and prepared to give just, patient-centered care.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(12):E987-994. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.987.
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.