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.
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.
The DSM-5 Task Force’s handling of the ethical controversy over the bereavement exclusion demonstrates the need for more inclusive deliberative processes.
AMA J Ethics. 2017; 19(2):192-198. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.pfor2-1702.
A look at current literature and work by a statewide initiative can motivate development of policies that help respond to unrepresented patients’ needs.
AMA J Ethics. 2019; 21(7):E611-616. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.611.
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.
Peter Ellis, MD, MPH and Lydia S. Dugdale, MD, MAR
Presenting all, including expensive, options to all patients means advocating not only for individual patients, but also for a just health care system.
AMA J Ethics. 2019; 21(1):E26-31. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.26.