Denisse Rojas Marquez, MD, MPP and Hazel Lever, MD, MPH
“Very important persons” care contributes to multitiered, racially segregated health service delivery streams that influence clinicians’ conceptions of what patients deserve from them.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(1):E66-71. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.66.
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.
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.
S. Michelle Ogunwole, MD, PhD and Francheska D. Starks, PhD
Testimonial injustice is an expression of racism that uses identity to undermine individuals’ credibility as authoritative “knowers” of their own bodies, selves, and experiences.
AMA J Ethics. 2024;26(1):E72-83. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2024.72.
Frank A. Chervenak, MD and Laurence B. McCullough, PhD
Clinical facts and physicians’ ethical obligations are critical in resolving disagreements between parents and physicians about resuscitation of an extremely premature infant.
Melissa Weddle, MD, MPH and Patricia K. Kokotailo, MD, MPH
Physicians should honor confidentiality whenever possible when screening and treating adolescents for sensitive health conditions such as substance abuse.
Preventing bad outcomes for teens and their offspring was the impetus behind confidential care for reproductive health. Requiring parental involvement created an obstacle to the provision of necessary care.
The default principle—that someone is free to do what he or she desires in the absence of a compelling reason why he or she should not—may make it possible to resolve ethical disputes without recourse to a particular moral framework.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(4):289-296. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.4.spec1-1504.