Mandatory genetic testing of health care professionals could help structure health care organizations’ responses to a pandemic. Patients and more susceptible employees can benefit, and these benefits must be weighed against concerns about fairness, autonomy, genetic privacy, and potential loss of employment opportunities.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E819-825. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.819.
Holly K. Tabor, PhD and Aaron Goldenberg, PhD, MPH
Rare genetic disease research has something to teach precision medicine about addressing some patients’ limited access to treatment. Health disparities exacerbated by high costs and limited availability of drugs can, perhaps, be mitigated when patient activism accelerates drug development.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E834-840. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.834.
Rebekah Davis Reed, PhD, JD and Erik L. Antonsen, PhD, MD
Though the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s collection of disaggregated genetic data for occupational surveillance and research raises numerous privacy concerns, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 allows genetic information to be used to develop personal pharmaceuticals.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E849-856. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.849.
Pathologists should work cooperatively with clinicians and provide guidance about appropriate testing to uphold the medical ethics principle of justice.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(8):793-799. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.8.ecas5-1608.
Cytopathologists frequently interact directly with patients at their bedsides to perform fine needle aspiration procedures. When, if ever, should cytopathologists share preliminary diagnostic impressions directly with patients?
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(8):779-785. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.8.ecas3-1608.
Rachel A. Mills, MS, Susanne B. Haga, PhD, and Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, MD, PhD
Clinical utility is a test’s contribution to health outcomes, while personal utility considers the psychosocial and lifestyle effects and the value of the information to the patient.
Requirements for informed consent are relatively vague and the exceptions are few, so it is in the physician’s best interest to inform patients about proposed treatment options, ascertain that they understand their choices, and secure their consent.