Gene editing to enhance humans’ adaptability to climate change should consider safety, harm to be averted, succeeding generations, and social consequences.

Public health and climate stabilization historically have competed for public funds, but investment in either good has the potential to advance both goods.

When a patient challenges the use of a reusable, stainless steel speculum rather than a plastic, throw-away one, the physician should educate her on the safety and environmental benefits of reusable medical devices.

Moral distress arises not only from organizational constraints on moral action but also from the environmental impacts of health care and climate change.

Climate is a primary determinant of whether a particular location has the environmental conditions suitable for the transmission of several vector-borne diseases, including dengue fever, St. Louis encephalitis, and West Nile virus.

When the health care industry came under the environmental microscope, the daily work of treating patients was discovered to be highly wasteful of natural and financial resources.

Though the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s collection of disaggregated genetic data for occupational surveillance and research raises numerous privacy concerns, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 allows genetic information to be used to develop personal pharmaceuticals.

Advancing the health of the global poor requires a “compass-based” framework that guides both morally sound and pragmatically effective action.

Despite legal protections for services for patients with LEP, some places have limited capacity to offer them.

Dr Jane Lee joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Drs Gabriel Robles and Latoya Small: “What Should Students Learn About the Importance of Cultural Brokering in Immigrant Communities?”