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.
Efrat Lelkes, MD, Angira Patel, MD, MPH, Anna Joong, MD, and Jeffrey G. Gossett, MD
Current policy requires separate informed consent for some Public Health Service increased-risk donors, and this can make shared decision making harder.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(5):E401-407. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.401.
Upcoding and misrepresenting clinical information constitute fraud, cost a lot, and can result in patient harm and unnecessary procedures and prescriptions.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(3):E221-231. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.221.
Underlying ideological foundations of stigma and equipment inadequacy include thin-centrism and inadequate representation of fat people in health care organizational leadership.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(7):E528-534. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.528.
Rebekah Davis Reed, PhD, JD and Erik L. Antonsen, PhD, MD
Though the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s collection of disaggregated genetic data for occupational surveillance and research raises numerous privacy concerns, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 allows genetic information to be used to develop personal pharmaceuticals.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E849-856. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.849.