Erica Chou, MD, Thomas Grawey, DO, and Jane B. Paige, PhD
Biases rooted in historically entrenched assumptions about medical supremacy are reified in popular cultural representations of health professionals and in students’ lived experiences.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(5):E338-343. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.338.
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.
Andrew M. Courtwright, MA and Mia Wechsler Doron, MTS, MD
A positive right to parenthood obligates others to support a person’s attempt to become a parent. Do physicians have a duty to assist their patients’ procreative efforts, and, if so, in what ways?
Kyle B. Brothers, MD, PhD and Esther E. Knapp, MD, MBE
Direct-to-consumer genetic testing requires that physicians share decision making with patients, not order unnecessary tests or interventions, and refer to genetic specialists when necessary.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E812-818. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.812.
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.
The meaning of “disability” has shifted with US public policy changes over time. People with disability are protected under civil rights law, and open questions remain about whether and when policy-level interventions and reasonable accommodations create equal opportunity.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(10):1025-1033. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.10.pfor2-1610.