Physicians should provide women considering abortion after Down syndrome screening with unbiased information and not attempt to influence their decision.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(4):359-364. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.ecas1-1604.
Isabelle Freiling, PhD, Nicole M. Krause, MA, and Dietram A. Scheufele, PhD
Misinformation is an urgent new problem, so health professions communities need solutions as much as they need to be wary of ethical pitfalls of rushed interventions.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(3):E228-237. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.228.
Despite the natural desire in obstetrics for a happy outcome, sometimes the common aggressive interventions will not help maintain a pregnancy until viability.
When deciding whether a pregnant woman will take antidepressants that pose a slight risk to the fetus, the patient and doctor must each make value-based determinations about whether absolute protection of the fetus is more important than preventing the mother’s probable suffering.
“Difficult” patient-physician encounters have roots in uncertainty about individuals’ trustworthiness, clinicians’ skills and training, and medical science.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(4):391-398. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.4.mhst1-1704.
Amanda Fakih, MHSA and Kayte Spector-Bagdady, JD, MBE
Testing everyone for everything identifies more fetal conditions, but confusion persists about whether clinicians should leave screening decisions to patients.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(10):E858-864. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.858.
Two bioethicists argue that prenatal disability screening promotes negativity toward the disabled and gives parents the ability to selectively form families.