Gene editing reminds professionals and the public that this technology’s reach goes beyond treating somatic disease to germline consequences yet unknown.
AMA J Ethics. 2019; 21(12):E1056-1058. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1056.
International debate about human genome editing governance has undergone a paradigm shift and suggests that inclusive public deliberation is still important.
AMA J Ethics. 2019; 21(12):E1065-1070. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.1065.
The DSM-5 Task Force’s handling of the ethical controversy over the bereavement exclusion demonstrates the need for more inclusive deliberative processes.
AMA J Ethics. 2017; 19(2):192-198. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.2.pfor2-1702.
Michael Anderson, PhD and Susan Leigh Anderson, PhD
Two concerns (unknowability of how output is derived from input and overreliance on clinical decision support systems) are main sources of ethical questions about AI in health care.
AMA J Ethics. 2019; 21(2):E125-130. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2019.125.