Prevention efforts can marginalize patients by stigmatizing certain behaviors, so distinguishing individual professionals’ preferences about those behaviors is critical.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(6):E536-539. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.536.
Michele C. Gornick, PhD, MA and Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, MA
How information is provided can change a choice. Decision science helps reveal affective forecasting errors and can generate choices congruent with patients’ and families’ values.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(10):E906-912. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.906.
Decision making in health care demands that we balance multiple considerations, like quality of life, statistics, and how different options could affect others. Dr Brian Zikmund-Fisher shares his own experience as a patient and explains how decision science can help us navigate ethically complex health decisions.
Not all cultural traditions have the same conception of personhood. In Confucianism, self-individuation takes place only through engagement with others in the context of one’s social roles and relationships.
Despite challenges of decision making for unrepresented patients, few laws or policy statements offer solutions. This article offers 5 key things to do.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(7):E582-586. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.582.
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.
Many pregnant undocumented immigrants are ineligible for public insurance covering prenatal care. National and state policies can either help or hinder patients’ access to health care that is universally recommended by professional guidelines.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(1):E93-99. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.93.
Physicians should provide women considering abortion after Down syndrome screening with unbiased information and not attempt to influence their decision.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(4):359-364. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.ecas1-1604.