Physicians should seriously weigh the benefits and risks involved prior to discussing the possibility of genetic testing with a patient or referring them to a genetic counselor.
Two physicians offer commentaries about the use of prenatal predictive testing for a late-onset disease like Huntington's and question whether the pregnant woman should ultimately have the decisional autonomy to determine the quality of life of the unborn child.
Two physicians offer commentaries about the use of prenatal predictive testing for a late-onset disease like Huntington's and question whether the pregnant woman should ultimately have the decisional autonomy to determine the quality of life of the unborn child.
Physicians have a responsibility to balance patient confidentiality and full disclosure to the family of adolescent patients with eating disorders in order to provide optimal treatment.
Sheldon Zink, PhD, Rachel Zeehandelaar, and Stacey Wertlieb, MBe
The benefits of the international presumed-consent policy are presented as a solution to the United States' current shortage of organs available for transplantation.
Alcoholics should not be subject to deprioritization on a liver transplant waiting list if the belief is held that alcoholism is a disease and not an issue of moral failure for which the patient should be blamed.
Chromosomal microarray analysis reveals many gene variants of unknown significance. The uncertainty about these variants—might they be deleterious or are they benign?—complicates genetic counseling.
The physician must consider the potential benefits of the new procedure and then determine, through discussion with the patient, what value the patient places on those specific benefits.
Allan B. Peetz, MD, Nicholas Sadovnikoff, MD, and Michael F. O’Connor, MD
Because of their serious medical conditions and the nature of the treatments, patients who are candidates for extracorporeal life support may not be able to give properly informed consent for the treatment.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(3):236-242. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.3.stas1-1503