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.
Transitions in relabeling personalized medicine as precision medicine, precision health, or wellness genomics reflect shifting the locus of responsibility for health from individuals to clinicians and in shifting focus from genetic risk to genetic enhancement.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E881-890. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.881.
This portrait of a child against a backdrop of health data suggests how a patient’s individuality can be obscured when precision medicine is used in decision making and developing target therapies.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E891-893. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.891.
Large precision health initiatives like the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us campaign raise important ethical questions about consent, privacy, and inclusivity. This month on Ethics Talk, we explore with Dr Katie Johansen Taber and Ysabel Duron strategies for protecting participants and ensuring that diverse communities are represented.
The Asilomar Conference of 1975 and the German Ethics Council offer guidance for a path towards prudent regulation in the face of unknown and significant risks.
AMA J Ethics. 2019; 21(12):E1042-1048. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1042.
Although advisory groups like the World Health Organization question whether certain forms of gene editing should be permitted, the US Patent Office routinely issues patents protecting this technology.
AMA J Ethics. 2019; 21(12):E1049-1055. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1049.