A graphic memoir documents clinical and ethical disagreements and decision points throughout a paramedic team’s time with an incarcerated patient in labor.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(10):E902-903. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.902.
Ruth M. Farrell, MD, MA, Marsha Michie, PhD, Christopher T. Scott, PhD, Rebecca Flyckt, MD, and Mary LaPlante, MD
One reason for neglect of women’s health as patients and subjects has been restrictions on uterine transfer of modified human embryos, a boundary that has now been crossed.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(12):E1071-1078. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1071.
Weyinshet Gossa, MD, MPH and Michael D. Fetters, MD, MPH, MA
Cervical cancer has become rare in high-income countries but is a leading cause of mortality among women in low- and middle-income countries. This inequity is an epidemiological tragedy.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(2):E126-134. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.126.
Marcia C. Inhorn, PhD, MPH and Pasquale Patrizio, MD, MBE
Low-cost in vitro fertilization (LCIVF) is better than no infertility treatment in countries that prohibit adoption and third-party reproductive assistance.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(3):228-237. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.3.ecas1-1803.
Physicians’ ethical obligations to disclose conflicts of interest to patients and to obtain their informed consent for treatment are particularly critical when proposed treatments are experimental.
Anne Drapkin Lyerly, MD, MA and Ruth R. Faden, PhD, MPH
Participation in a research study—in which there are rigorous standards and close monitoring—may be a safer context for the use of medications in pregnancy than the clinical setting, where the evidence base is lacking.
Christina Krudy, MD and Kavita Shah Arora, MD, MBE
Antenatal corticosteroids aren’t as effective in reducing neonatal mortality in low-income as high-income regions due to cultural and health care differences.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(3):261-268. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.3.stas1-1803.
An argument that the concept of judicious dissent can resolve the debate over a physician’s conscience-based right to refuse to provide lawful services.
An argument that an individual physician’s conscience-based decision not to offer specific, lawful medical services should not restrict patients’ access to those services.