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?"
COVID-19 underscores historical precedent for fear-driven responses that disregard autonomy among persons with low income who are also persons of color.
AMA J Ethics. 2021;23(11):E840-846. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2021.840.
Transitions in relabeling personalized medicine as precision medicine, precision health, or wellness genomics reflect shifting the locus of responsibility for health from individuals to clinicians and in shifting focus from genetic risk to genetic enhancement.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E881-890. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.881.
In the 1910s, the American Medical Association fought quackery promoted in pamphlets for drugs and treatments for everything from teething to epilepsy.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1082-1093. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.1082.
Nanoscale products pose ethical, legal, and policy challenges to governing the use of products that integrate multiple mechanisms of therapeutic action.
AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(4):E347-355. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.347.