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.
Dichotomies, such as reconstructive vs aesthetic surgery and medical vs cosmetic dermatology, can distort meanings of surgical procedures. This can compromise the value of procedures themselves and practices for their reimbursement.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(12):E1188-1194. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1188.
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.
Lee C. Zhao, MD, Gaines Blasdel, Augustus Parker, and Rachel Bluebond-Langner, MD
Tension between realistic goals and unrealistic views about how to achieve them is compounded when patients are eager to revise a prior surgeon’s gender-affirming procedure.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(6):E391-397. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.391.
Clinicians can support shared decision making by assessing patients’ knowledge, eligibility for screening, and preferences for engagement—active, collaborative, or passive—in the decision making process.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(7):601-607. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.7.ecas1-1507.