Clara C. Hildebrandt, MD and Jonathan M. Marron, MD, MPH
Gene editing with CRISPR/Cas9 raises concerns about equitable access to therapies that could limit research participation by minority group members. These concerns can be addressed through public education, transparency, and stakeholder partnerships.
Holly K. Tabor, PhD and Aaron Goldenberg, PhD, MPH
Rare genetic disease research has something to teach precision medicine about addressing some patients’ limited access to treatment. Health disparities exacerbated by high costs and limited availability of drugs can, perhaps, be mitigated when patient activism accelerates drug development.
The allocation of scarce resources, such as HLA platelets, involves a conflict between the medical ethics principles of beneficence and social justice.
After years of funding disease-specific treatment, donation trends have shifted to support broader health systems infrastructure development. A remaining challenge is how to sustain antiretroviral therapy (ART) for patients in resource-poor regions.
A judicious approach to autism would be to replace a “disability” or “illness” paradigm with a “diversity” perspective that takes into account both strengths and weaknesses and the idea that variation can be positive in and of itself.
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.
In the same way that we learn about normal variations in blood pressure, we need to learn about “normal” variations in sexual interests and practices. We want to avoid clueless questions or unintentionally inflammatory statements.