Clinical needs of patients with disabilities are seen with the “medical gaze,” a depersonalized lens of evidence-based medicine and of presumed objectivity.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(1):E85-87. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.85.
Dr Isa Ryan joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Dr Ashish Premkumar and Professor Katie Watson: “Why the Post-Roe Era Requires Protecting Conscientious Provision as We Protect Conscientious Refusal in Health Care.”
Perpetration-induced traumatic stress should be understood as present, not just posttraumatic, stress disorder because retraumatization is part of slaughterhouse workers’ jobs.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(4):E251-255. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.251.
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.
With good planning and good will, medical professionals’ right of conscience and patients’ rights to controversial services can be both protected and accommodated.