When responding to an ad for a job caring for patient-detainees along the US southern border, applicants should anticipate the need to navigate dual loyalties.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(1):E12-17. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.12.
A lack of consensus guidelines or a belief that current evidence does not support such guidelines might be justified if a clinician expresses a commitment to patient-centered care and shared decision making.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1007-1016. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1007.
Parents’ false beliefs can be engaged respectfully to motivate deliberations about shared values and goals, but refusal of clinically indicated treatment could warrant reporting.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1017-1024. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1017.
Stephanie L. Samuels, MD and Wilma C. Rossi, MD, MBE
When a parent resists a physician's recommendation for a pediatric patient, physician-parent partnering can promote the patient's best interest and help encourage lifestyle changes.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(12):E1126-1132. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1126
As a matter of medical ethics, physicians must advocate for their vulnerable patients and medical schools should offer training in advocacy and activism.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(1):8-15. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.1.ecas1-1701.
After the infant’s birth, the neonatologist’s first duty is to his or her patient—the newly born infant. If clinical circumstances are different than anticipated, the physician must first consider the best interests of the baby.
Family presence in the trauma bay is not entirely analogous to family presence during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and requires a chaperone system.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(5):455-463. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.5.ecas5-1805.
In treating children with autism, physicians should reframe the common dynamic in which the family wants medication that the doctor is withholding to focus instead on the family’s and physician’s share goal—the patient’s well-being.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(4):299-304. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.4.ecas1-1504.