Hanni Stoklosa, MD, MPH, Marti MacGibbon, CADC-II, ACRPS, and Joseph Stoklosa, MD
Clinicians diagnosing and treating potentially trafficked patients with co-occurring addiction and mental illness should guard against expressing negative biases.
AMA J Ethics. 2017; 19(1):23-24. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.1.ecas3-1701.
Carrie A. Bohnert, MPA, Aaron W. Calhoun, MD, and Olivia F. Mittel, MD, MS
Research and training are needed so that physicians are able to identify human trafficking victims and refer them to appropriate trauma-informed treatment.
AMA J Ethics. 2017; 19(1):35-42. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.1.ecas4-1701.
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.”
Educators discussing ethically challenging topics with students should try to cultivate open mindedness while illuminating potential negative consequences that their health practice beliefs—such as refusing to provide abortion care—can have for patients, particularly those with limited options.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(7):E637-642. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.637.
Principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence guide trauma-informed care. Care ethics should also support this framework for responding to the health needs of trafficked patients.
AMA J Ethics. 2017; 19(1):80-90. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2017.19.1.msoc2-1701.
Global health training offered through UCSF’s EMPOWUR program prepares ob/gyn residents to work in under-resourced communities locally as well as globally.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(3):253-260. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.3.medu1-1803.
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.