Charles E. Binkley, MD, Michael S. Politz, MA, and Brian P. Green, PhD
If the safe-and-effective standard for judging devices’ potential as therapy or enhancement is inadequate, one might wonder whether BCI regulation should be overseen by the FDA.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(9):E745-749. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.745.
Dr Charles Binkley joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article, coauthored with Michael Politz and Dr Brian Green: "Who, If Not the FDA, Should Regulate Implantable Brain-Computer Interface Devices?"
Joel A. DeLisa, MD, MS and Jacob Jay Lindenthal, PhD, DrPH
Research on experiences of practicing physicians who have disabilities could help medical schools counsel applicants and increase enrollment among students with disabilities. This can ultimately improve care for patients with disabilities.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(10):1003-1009. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.10.stas1-1610.
Transparency about teaching hospitals’ educational mission respects patient autonomy and aligns patients’ interests with those of trainees and the public.
AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(6):537-543. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.6.ecas1-1706.
When deciding whether to offer deep brain stimulation earlier than usual for Parkinson disease, it is important to consider not only the patient’s autonomy but also the validity of the evidence and concepts of harm that are being used to form practice policies.
Because many complementary and alternative medicine therapies for autism are based on misguided notions of its cause and lack support from scientifically sound studies, physicians should steer parents away from these practices and toward safe, effective, and evidence-based interventions.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(4):375-380. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.4.sect2-1504